[Roy]

skipper wrote:

It was a commandment for a 50-year duration so that there could be many LDS offspring. This parallels the Old Testament commandment. Nash points out the Book of Mormon underscore monogamy is the preferred commandments, and polygamy was just a short-term (50 years) commandment to raise LDS children.

To some women it was awful to other women it was joyful. Brigham Young allowed women to have easy divorces. Some men were righteous priesthood holders who did their best to be good husbands and fathers, and some were awful men preying on wanting to have sex with many women and could care less about being a good father.

I’m assuming that the book that you read was apologetic. I have compiled the following list of justifications for polygyny:

Quote:

1. God commands it: “God said thou shalt not kill, at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy…that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another…Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is…although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” RSR p. 441 “I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise. “TPJS p. 256, 324

2. The ancient patriarchs practiced it (apparently without divine condemnation).

3. To fashion a righteous generation on the eve of the Second Coming: “The Lord has revealed to me that it is his will that righteous men shall take righteous women, even a plurality of wives, that a righteous race may be sent forth upon the earth preparatory to the ushering in of the millennial reign of our Redeemer.” RSR p. 326, Jacob 2:24-30

4. For “greater glory”: “The first commandment was to ‘Multiply’ and the Prophet taught us that Dominion & power in the great future would be commensurate with the number of ‘wives, children & friends’ that we inherit here and that our great mission to earth was to organize a nucleus of Heaven to take with us. To the increase of which there would be no end.”…”When the family organization was revealed from heaven- the patriarchal order of God, and Joseph began, on the right hand and the left, to add to his family, what a quaking there was in Israel.” In Sacred loneliness p. 10-11 “Joseph’s kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those bonded to that family would be exalted with him.” JS reportedly said “I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie. All that he gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me.” In Sacred Loneliness. The purpose was “to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities…Like Abraham of old, Joseph yearned for familial plentitude.” RSR p 439-440, D & C 132:55 “If your [husband] and you should be alone by the side of such a king as Abraham or Solomon with all his queens and their numerous servants and waiting maids in courtly livery, would he not look like a mere rushlight by the side of such suns, or rather would he be seen at all! I should almost fear that your [husband] would be taken for a servant, and you for a waiting maid; or if they should, in the galaxy and splendor of 144,00 such suns as Solomon, happen to see you and your [husband] with a king’s coronet upon his head, they might think him short of wedding garments, or that the selfishness of his wife had stinted his growth to such an insignificant, crab-tree size! Besides, a Queen to him that has his hundreds of wives in eternity, with children as numberless as the stars of heaven, would receive intelligence, wealth, honour, children, and dominion, in some measure proportioned to the exaltations of her husband and king; while your [husband], not having much to look after besides you, could not demand the same measure of wealth, honour, and dominion, because he could use upon you and your little family but a small pittance of what pertains to one moving in a wider and far more exalted sphere. Your intelligence, and that of your children, could not rise higher than the intelligence of your husband. Consequently, you must see yourself and your husband, and your children, continually outstripped in intelligence by all others around you. Your social circle must consequently be very limited at home. And your offspring not be as numerous. The motive which would lead you to retain your husband exclusively to yourself, would contribute to make you comparatively unfruitful, and also vitiate the mental and bodily functions of your offspring, and sow the seeds of death and mortality in their systems… Hence I see the wisdom of God in not tolerating any such system [as monogamy] among the celestial worthies who are to be kings and queens unto God for ever…. God has determined to bestow His greatest blessings upon the liberal order, and only very stinted favours upon the narrow, contracted order [of monogamy] which you seem to desire. In the former order your children are all the lawful heirs of thrones and kingdoms, and in your favourite order they are only the heirs of servile inferiority.” Millennial Star 1853 Nelly & Abby

5. Pre-mortal commitments: “Joseph said I was his, before I came here. He said all the Devils in Hell should never get me from him.” JS had been told to marry Mary, “or suffer condemnation- for I (Mary) was created for him before the foundation of the Earth was laid.” In Sacred Loneliness, also “thou made a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while here in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring. You also choose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world … to be your be head, stay, husband, and protector on the earth, and to exalt you in the eternal worlds. All these were arranged.” The Origin and Destiny of Women, John Taylor. Said Asael Smith, Grandfather of the Prophet, “I believe God hath created the persons for each other, and that Nature will find its own.” The Family of Joseph Smith p 16

In our attempt to understand polygamy, we modern Mormons tend to focus on 1, 2, & 3. Ancient patriarchs did it. God commanded that we do it again for a time. In order to have lots of children (we tend to drop the part about the immanent second coming).

This is because from our modern vantage point 1) we know that the second coming didn’t happen then and seems to be further and further downplayed as we move along – why was it so urgent to have kids fast again? 2) the pre-mortal commitment stuff has challenging implications for free agency and is ripe for abuse from men trying to cajole women into marriage. 3) the greater glory thing is also challenging. If polygamy was just a temporary commandment for 50 years then why does polygamy need to exist forever in the CK. Do men with at least 3 wives attain a glory that monogamous men just cannot reach as BY taught? A recent version of the teacher’s seminary manual instructed the teachers not to speculate on whether or not polygamy is required to reach the highest level of the CK (instead of just a clear message that polygamy is not required to reach this level).

For me it is helpful to compartmentalize early Mormon theology and modern Mormon theology. I am a fan of using the Marvel and DC comic book universes as examples. They are similar and borrow ideas from each other but they are clearly separate worlds that work under separate rules. We can speculate on who would win in a fight, superman or captain marvel but ultimately we are comparing apples and oranges. This is how I see early Mormon theology and modern Mormon theology. They cannot be aligned because they come from different worlds.

[Roy]

I think it was OldTimer that said that “biology can be a hard taskmaster.” I may not have gotten that right.

I absolutely agree that some people can have higher sex drives that are impacted by hormone levels. It can also be difficult for those individuals when they are married to a person with a lower sex drive. The problem is not the high sex drive nor the low sex drive but rather the mismatch. As a practical compromise solution I recommend scheduling sex and non-pornography masturbation to attempt to reach equilibrium between partners. I intentionally left this gender neutral because some women are the higher desire partner in their marriage and can face additional distress for their husbands seeming lack of interest.

Lots of individuals have different biological situations of differing severity and challenge. I do not think that it would be wise to characterize these high libido individuals of being “abused” by their libidos. Partly because I still want to believe in free will and personal choice.

skipper wrote:

But I also thing there were some very good LDS men that were good to their many wives. I certainly do not see it as one size fits all.

I recommend the book “In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith” by Todd Compton

Bro. Compton’s central thesis is that we are accustomed to thinking about polygamy as something more than monogamy but his research indicates that in most cases it was something far less. No matter how you attempt to do the math the wives were making do with a fraction of a husband. Even if that husband was wealthy and could provide financially, a wife wants and needs much more from her husband than a bank account. Even in the best circumstances for polygamous marriages, some of these needs went unmet. In some of these relationships, sister wives could band together and support one another and help fill the gaps. Still, much of the time the lived experiences of these women was more akin to the experience of single mothers or young widows with children still at home. Thus the title “Sacred Loneliness.”

[Roy]

I remember having an awkward conversation with my non-member best friend.

Another friend had gifted him a BoM with their testimony in the front. My friend showed it to me and laughed about it as a really weird “gift.”

I disclosed that there is some pressure within the church to share the gospel with friends with the imagined scenario of being up in heaven without your non-member friends and they feel betrayed that you kept this saving knowledge to yourself all that time despite having multiple opportunities.

I then told my friend that I did not want him to ever feel betrayed that I didn’t share with him. He reassured me that he was good and that if he ever had any questions or curiosity, he knew where to go to ask.

This settled the matter between us.

[Roy]

Interesting thought related to gender roles and paying influencers:

I think that some might find it more acceptable for men to be LDS paid influencers (I’m thinking of John Bytheway, Michael Mclean, and Brad Wilcox here) than women.

The only female example I can think of in this category is Al Carraway (aka the Tattooed Mormon). She is a really engaging speaker and I understand that her husband is the stay at home parent as she does her work of paid speaker and influencer.

[Roy]

AmyJ wrote:

This reinforces a gender divide about what labor is worth paying for.

I noticed that too. “Women’s work” is more likely to be expected for free.

I did a little digging and noted that in 2014 the CES reversed a previous policy that would prevent women with young children at home from working as CES instructors. They were actually terminated once their babies were born and would not be eligible for rehire until their children graduated high school. This was inconsistent with the fact that the vast majority of unpaid seminary teachers were and are women, many of those with young children at home. (Side note that there is a trend among seminary teachers to spend their own money on classroom projects and not get reimbursed. I think that the covenant of consecration and culture of women serving without making a fuss makes it hard for some women to ask for reimbursement in an assertive manner)

It was also interesting to note some other inconsistencies. Quoted from the 2014 Salk Lake Tribune article:

Quote:

Brigham Young University-Idaho history professor Andrea Radke-Moss praised the move for making the policy consistent across church institutions.

The LDS Church “already long allowed for hiring mothers with children as full-time faculty at church universities,” Radke-Moss writes in an email. “Further, the fact that the motherhood-status exclusion for women was not similarly applied to female secretaries exposes some gender binaries at play for what was considered ‘acceptable’ work for mothers. (Secretary, yes, teacher, no.)”

It was ok for church employed secretaries or university professors to be working mothers. It was ok for a mother with young children to spend loads of time and her own money as an unpaid (volunteer) seminary instructor. It was not ok for a mother with young children at home to be employed by the church as a paid CES instructor (seminary or institute). This has everything to do with the church leadership’s understanding of gender roles and that, ideally, women would be stay at home mothers (a sentiment that is still pushed in the family proclamation).

[Roy]

SilentDawning wrote:

Sounds like priestcraft to me. Making money off your holding the priesthood or your membership in the church. I think it’s shady…

I find it interesting. If I worked for the church as an accountant, computer programmer, or janitor – I would be compensated for my time, my labor, and my skills.

We also expect church members to volunteer their time, labor, and skills for a host of duties.

We give GAs a generous stipend because they are expected to give all of their time and give up any previous career.

We do not give stipends to any of the women serving in the RS, primary, or YW general leadership. I think it is assumed that their husbands will provide financially for them but in the case of Sheri Dew she had to juggle being CEO of Deseret Book and 2nd counselor in the RS general presidency. She went to the prophet at the time to request guidance on how to juggle it and was told something like, “I believe in you to figure it out. Just do your best.”

Where do we draw the line? and is drawing the line in one place moral and another place immoral?

[Roy]

AmyJ wrote:

I choose to see previous testimonies and “truths” as what younger me understood and valued while recognizing that older me has had different experiences and has come to different “truthful” conclusions. I think that all humans are like that.

Agreed! 100%

[Roy]

nibbler wrote:

It’s a strange flex to make in 2025.

I thought the church wanted to distance itself from polygamy as much as possible because that’s what many outsiders with a passing awareness of Mormons automatically associate with the church. Granted he is preaching to the choir.

I speculate that Elder Oaks would not have said this in GC, that he would not have included the “or mothers” reference to a possible plurality of heavenly female companions to our singular male deity.

Did he know that he was being recorded?

[Roy]

Minyan Man wrote:

As I review the 10 questions & responses everyone has posted, I realize that at the time I

joined the LDS church, I spent more time & effort buying a used car then I did about the

joining the church. That doesn’t mean joining the church was a bad decision. My decision

was based on a “good” feeling that were interpreted by me as spiritual or a “personal

revelation”.

I have often thought about the decisions I’ve made in life & how different my life would

have been if my decisions would have taken a different path. For example:

. the major chosen in college.

. the company that offered me a job.

. my wife saying yes when I proposed.

. the list is endless along life’s path.

I benefited from the structure and discipline during my formative years. I learned to hard work, good study habits, and the value of volunteerism.

I took some college classes before serving as a missionary and my average was mostly B’s with a smattering of C’s. After returning, my GPA improved mightily.

I believe that other areas of my life were blessed as well as I was prevented from making bad and far reaching mistakes regarding sexual activity and substance use.

I am at peace with what I gave to the church during that time in my life and I’m at peace with what the church gave to me.

[Roy]

We have been visiting some churches. One spent far too much time talking about the science behind a 6,000 year old creationism. Another, seems to be good. More vibrant youth program, the membership seems to be welcoming, the worship music is nice, and the sermons follow the bible. Someone must work at the local grocery because there are always piles of baked goods for people to take home with them after the service.

Still, I think it works best for us if we don’t take it too seriously. My 17 year old son was telling me that one of the youth leaders was saying that the only unforgivable sin was to abandon the church after the holy spirit has shone inside you. I explained to my son that yes the bible does say something to that effect but the bible was written 2000+ years ago and contains lots of things that don’t really apply to us now. It also is awfully convenient for current church members to look at those that have fallen away with a mix of scorn and pity. That helps keep current church members loyal.

The broad strokes are good. Jesus gave his life for us to lay claim upon us as his children and family. Just don’t take all the minutia too seriously.

[Roy]

There does not appear to be any official prohibition against non-members sharing testimony.

It is requested that such testimonies be faith (and LDS faith) affirming.

[Roy]

nibbler wrote:

Say something like, “There was a time in my life where I needed God but I could not feel his presence. Sometimes when people share stories about lost keys it makes me wonder why God was there for them over something relatively trivial but not there for me in my desperate hour of need.”

I agree. I also think that members will expect you to include some sort of message about how you ultimately realized that you were being tested or that there was some greater divine purpose or that, even now, you wait patiently on the “Lord’s timing.”

I think most members would be mildly/moderately uncomfortable with you saying that you had felt that God abandoned you in your hour of need … and it was hard … but then you got used to it. 😥

[Roy]

Quote:

In an interview, [Carol Lynn Pearson] likened the church’s shifting posture to a kind of “pioneer journey” for individuals and the institution as a whole, with some members acting as “scouts out front” — seeing the territory ahead and urging the rest to move faster.

I like this. I have long gravitated towards the idea of a “continuing restoration” or that God is still changing and refining his church as fast as the members can tolerate it. I, personally, also combine this with the message shared by Matthew Holland in his 2005 talk “wrong roads and revelation” to suggest that the church can go down a wrong road (polygamy or priesthood & temple restriction) before God intervenes to pull us out of it. That God takes the long view and promotes progress, even if it meanders.

This perspective of Pearson adds something to that framework. There can be scouts out front of the mainstream church “seeing the territory ahead and urging the rest to move faster.” Some of these scouts can be urging us to go down what ultimately becomes a wrong road and some can be urging us to go down what ends up being the correct road. God allows all of this as a very messy process for revelation and progress. The scouts perform an important but very dangerous job and risk being alienated from the church that they are trying to help.

Part of my reason for adopting the “continuing restoration” model is to provide a bridge between my understanding and mainstream Mormonism. IOW, how can I frame my belief in “Mormonese?” Unfortunately, I think that bringing in the “wrong roads” idea and Pearson’s “forward scouts” idea is probably a bridge too far for most LDS.

I’m trying to be just different enough to be insightful but not so different as to be apostate. 😆

[Roy]

I had this exact same discussion with my, at the time, bishop years ago. I expressed that part of my faith crisis came from my belief that payment of tithing would bless my family with protection. When our third child was stillborn, I was left reeling and questioning what I had done wrong. I finally came to the understanding that God never actually promises that he will protect our families in exchange for devoted church service (including tithing). After coming to that realization, those sort of “lost keys” testimonies would hit me differently and I felt that they were implying a quid pro quo relationship that I don’t think is fully supported in scripture or reality. Bishop was sympathetic and said that some members can get carried away in their testimonies and go beyond what the scriptures say in their zeal.

I then showed Bishop a recent church publication that said that God will bless families for tithing payment with both spiritual and temporal blessings. He then backtracked and said, “well, God can bless us temporally if needed.”

I realized in that moment that I had found the line or limit in my bishop’s ability to sympathize with my experience. He was ok throwing the testimonies of well meaning members under the bus but not a church publication that said the same thing.

Also, there is no way to prove if God gets involved in everything, or somethings, or nothing. It really comes down to a matter of opinion.

Honestly, I am no better at “truth seeking” than anyone else. I was fine believing that God protected me and my family while not really concerning myself with the idea that God might allow the babies of others to die. It only blew up my worldview when my own baby died.

[Roy]

A few years ago, I was assigned to speak in SM about testimony. My talk was defined testimony in the legal sense as being a witness. I was not present at the founding moments of the church to testify to those but I do have personal experiences that I can share that support my belief in these things. I then shared about moments when I felt the spirit and felt loved by a higher power.

The high councilman assigned to speak behind me started his talk by giving the very formulaic, “I know JS was a prophet etc.” He went on like this for the 5 or 6 basic tenets of the church and then he pivoted to his talk, that was not anyway related. It felt obvious and embarrassing that I was being publicly corrected. I had just spoken about testifying to what I have personally seen and felt and he comes in and boldly testifies to things that he was not present for.

This is because my talk contradicted (however gently) established church teachings on “bearing testimony.” IMO, People do not come to church to learn things. Most of the members come to church to be validated, confirmed, and affirmed in their pre-existing beliefs and biases. If you are affirming the church and the current teachings and leasers of the church, you will likely not be corrected even if what you say in not strictly true. If you contradict the church, current teachings, or the leadership, then you are likely to get censured even if what you say is 100% true.

Like Nibbler, part of me figures, “why rain on their parade.”

[Author]

Posts