I’ve had a few thoughts, provoked by Geoff’s link to the obituary of a prominent Utah polygamist in a previous post. I’m guessing that my own take might spark its own discussion, so forgive me for putting up a separate post about it.
Anyway, the obituary of polygamist Owen Allred is not unique in that its writer expresses a growing tolerance for the polygamous lifestyle.
While you’ll hear few endorsements from mainstream figures, it’s becoming increasingly common to hear them give general support for the legality of polygamy. Folks who make these statements are usually liberal-minded types who try to be open-minded and tolerant. As well, you’ll almost always see an analogy to the gay marriage movement, which the speaker usually favors.
My first, subconscious reaction, when I read these arguments is “good for you, at least you’re being fair-minded honest about the implications of your arguments.” And it’s true– it’s nice to see a few people accept the logical ends of the principles they hold so dear. It seems like this reaction is not too hard to find elsewhere in the bloggernacle and the church at large, although I can’t cite to a specific example.
But then my second reaction comes in: “What did you just say??? You’re feeling a bit validated because some guy wrote about how maybe polygamy should be acceptable?” Honestly, what does it say about us that we find a growing acceptance of polygamy, quite subconsciously, as sort of validating? Am I alone in this, or do others sometimes catch themselves celebrating the new open-mindedness towards polygamy?
Needless to say, I find this very, very weird. Because of our context, as the heirs to America’s most prominent persecuted polygamists, we can’t avoid a bit of identification with the practice. But I think the tiny bit of sympathy we might feel for those keeping the covenant these days obscures one basic fact: It is completely wrong, immoral, and depraved. Is it not?
This is not an argument against those who practiced “the principle” in the days when it was commanded by God. Those arguments have been made many times over, and I myself harbor no doubts that the prophets acted as they were directed. But is there any question that those who practice polygamy when not commanded by God through his official earthly mouthpiece are committing an abomination? Step outside of your Mormon sympathies for a moment, and tell me why I should view polygamy in any better light than I view fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc. I, for one, might have a very different reaction to hearing that a hippie commune in Vermont had been established, where all men had five wives, than hearing about the fundamentalist spinoffs of my own faith. Isn’t it weird that we have a predisposition, though it be ever-so-slight, to look past polygamy? If we didn’t have it in our history, wouldn’t Mormons be some of the country’s strongest advocates against it?
So here’s the challenge, in three parts:
1. What is the Mormon view of polygamy, the kind not practiced under the direction of the church?
2. If we agree that polygamy is a deeply depraved practice, is there any chance Mormons could ever become a strong voice against it (assuming, as several media sources do, that polygamy is on the rise)?
3. If there is no chance of Mormons ever becoming strong advocates against polygamy, is that simply because we believe we’d have a weak moral position in making the argument, or because we silently suspect that we may return someday to the principle, and want to leave the legal doorway open, just in case?
“It is completely wrong, immoral, and depraved. Is it not?”
Well, yes, but as long as Section 132 is doctrinal, how can Mormons agree with this statement? In addition, current temple marriage practices validate polygamous relationships made today (a man can be sealed to many wives in the temple). Finally, a close reading of the Official Declarations seem to say that Mormons are not able to practice polygamy because the government tells them not to. They don’t say anything about how polygamy is an evil practice. Church leaders speak out against the practice now, but polygamy is too much a part of our heritage as Latter Day Saints for the Church to lead the charge against polygamy.
Tess, that’s a good statement of where we are right now.
But like I said above, there’s plenty of polygamy that has not been endorsed by the Lord. Let’s confine our discussion only to that kind of polygamy, which is all current-day polygamy (with the notable exception of serial temple sealings). Do we all agree that it’s immoral? If we do, why do we still feel defensive about it?
Um, because my great great grandpa did it?
I don’t know if I agree it’s immoral. I think I’ll be living in polygamy if I make it to the Celestial Kingdom.
Well, my husband will, I will be the non-goddess wife, in the cabin with my books and hot tub and color satellite tv. And endless pasta.
Polygamy outside of official sanction by God through his prophet is polyamory, which is indeed wrong, a sin and immoral. I think Jesus made it pretty clear when he pointed out that we shouldn’t even think polyamorous thoughts. Polygamy was given to us as part of the testing process of those who would truly follow God’s will. Unless it is instituted again by his prophet, it’s wrong. But it will be nearly impossible for society in general to take Mormons seriously on this issue — there is no way the general populace will understand the difference between polyamory and God-sanctioned polygamy. It will be a stumbling block for many people, just as belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a stumbling block 2,000 years ago and just as belief in the Book of Mormon is a stumbling block today.
Jacob 1:15: “And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.“
Jacob 2:24: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.“
As I noted in my review of the new Preach My Gospel Manual, the Church’s current policy is: “Those who are married to more than one person at a time may not be baptized.“
Even in countries where polygamy is legal, the church denies baptism to practicing polygamists and will excommunicate members who take a second spouse.
I think Jesus made it pretty clear when he pointed out that we shouldn’t even think polyamorous thoughts.
I don’t believe Jesus made any intimations about the marital status of anyone involved:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
It’s the unlawful lustfulness, not the marital status, which is the issue.
And for what it’s worth, I’m still not comfortable with this part of Question #2:
If we agree that polygamy is a deeply depraved practice…
Well, yeah, if we all agreed on it, then there’d be no meat to your post. It’s the fact that we DON’T all agree on it that is the real substantive content here.
“Polygamy was given to us as part of the testing process of those who would truly follow God’s will.”
Wow. Good to know.
Nathan, I’m not sure I understand your point. In the context of first century AD, there were significant issues with Jewish leaders who divorced their wives at the drop of a hat so they could pursue younger women, the issue clearly was adultery, which meant lusting after other women to whom you were not married. Look at the entire context of Matthew 5:27-32:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into bhell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Seems pretty clear to me that the issue is marriage.
Ryan,
I have always had a sympathetic place in my heart for some polygamists who truly believe that they are living God’s will. Maybe that is because my great-great-great grandfather was a polygamist.
But there are those who also use the religion as a shield, and there are really women and children who are abused under its cloak. If I were a prosecutor, I would take a tough stand against it. We are a nation of laws, and we should follow and execute those laws (reasonably, of course).
It probably is a little odd to have a sort of winking predisposition to looking past polygamy, but I do think that in many cases it stems from knowing that our ancestors were persecuted not too far back for living this principle as they understood it.
Anyway, here are my attempts at answering your questions:
1. The words of a prophet:
(Nov. 1998 ensign). I would guess that this also means that we would favor prosecuting those who break the law by practicing polygamy. But I still do sense a hesitance to become involved in social demonstrations against it as we do, for example, against gay marriage. Interesting.
2. I don’t know that Mormons would ever become a strong force against polygamy generally in the world, though they will be a strong force against some of the evils that perhaps accompany some polygamous groups: child abuse, spousal abuse, etc. But I do get the feeling that Church members and the Church Administration generally do not feel as mobilized against groups practicing polygamy as we do about gay marriage, again.
3. It may be either one. Perhaps it is the fear of hurting those who truly and sincerely do believe they are called to practice polygamy, or the general fear of causing some harm to principles of religious freedom (I know, I know, Davis v. Beason- polygamy not protected by free exercise…)
Ryan,
I don’t know that we can segregate our thinking in the way you want. If I say that polygamy itself is deeply depraved (rather than a problem of not following the current prophet), I’m impugning my great-grandfather. He didn’t marry polygamously because the prophet told him to, and he didn’t see it as a test of his faith. He thought (and was taught) that it was an eternal, holy principle, one that the Western world would eventually realize was superior to monogamy, and an intrinsic part of the restoration of all things. As Tess pointed out, section 132 is still there.
Having said that, I do think that many of the contemporary polygamous practices I have read about are wildly dysfunctional and depraved (i.e., child brides, abuse, violence, welfare fraud).
Wow Greg-
I think we are close to the same age, but you are generations ahead of me!
Geoff,
I don’t see it as being nearly so clear. Jesus doesn’t say “whosoever IS MARRIED and looketh upon a woman to lust after her…” Now, granted, the world “adultery” is, to our eyes, a sin only committed by the married, but this clear distinction is much more in our modern minds than in ancient ones. After all, we consider fornication and adultery to be comparable sins which, all other things being equal, are of roughly equivalent seriousness, but there’s no mention of fornication in the Ten Commandments. I submit that, in many cases, “adultery” meant “sex outside of a marriage,” whether pre-marital or what we consider extra-marital. Or, as you put it, “lusting after women to whom you aren’t married.”
Again, it appears that the lustfulness is the issue. Unless you’re suggesting that a necessary conclusion is that Jesus thinks that looking lustfully on a woman is okey-dokey if you’re single.
Even if I were to concede a stricter, more modern definition of adultery, it still remains to be proven that the “lust” being decried here is the only possible motive or reason for a polygamous marriage. Certainly, that doesn’t jibe with what we know of early Mormon marriage practices.
(Extra: It appears, via various Bible dictionaries, that a specific definition of Old-Testament adultery was sex between a married/betrothed woman and any other man, regardless of the MAN’S marital status.)
Greg, I have polygamous ancestors also, but the key issue is how the first people to adopt the principle (Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, etc) reacted to it. For them, it was clearly a test of faith. They had been raised in very conservative New England households and taught that polygamy was adultery. Changing their mindsets was the key issue — because then other Saints were likely to accept it or reject it. I think by 1860 or 1870, Mormons had come up with all kinds of justifications such as the ones you mention. A culture of polygamy had developed, and when that happened of course people began to talk about it being superior to monogamy. But that was not the mindset of Mormons in 1840 — they reacted with horror and only relented after a severe trial of their faith. I tend to think of it as a winnowing process. Brigham Young accepted polygamy — as instructed by the prophet — and was rewarded for his faith. John Bennett practiced unsanctioned “spiritual wifery” (adultery) and was expelled from the Church.
Jordan, thanks for attempting rigourously to answer my questions.
I suppose I’m most concerned with number three: What is our reason for not getting up in arms about this practice. Yes, I understand Greg’s point that the world would see us as hypocrites, and it’s a fair point that we’d lack much legitimacy. But regardless of how credible our voice would be, doesn’t it behoove us to make a stance against things we believe are wrong? I just think it’s so weird that we haven’t done this at all as Mormons. My own fear is that we’re unwilling to do this because we are scared of the principle coming back. But isn’t it our duty to stand for what is right at the moment, instead of trying to anticipate what God might change in fifty years?
Ryan,
To understand number three, we have to change the assumption. Perhaps many LDS don’t believe that polygamy is wrong, just illegal (simply malum prohibitum rather than malum in se). Perhaps many believe that a sincerely held religious belief that God has instituted polygamy is enough to justify its practice, and that is why we don’t get all up in arms about it. After all, the Book of Mormon even discusses how polygamy is OK when instituted by the Lord.
If someone truly believes that to be the case, then isn’t that a case of malum prohibitum, rather than malum in se that would cause us to really mobilize against it?
Geoff: “I think by 1860 or 1870, Mormons had come up with all kinds of justifications such as the ones you mention.”
Well, yeah, mostly because the prophets taught those justifications (also known as Joseph Smith’s revelations) for 73 years (1831-1904), the Church canonized those justifications as scripture, because the practice was stopped only at the point of a gun, which everyone understood.
Jordan:
My Grandpa just died a couple of years ago, and I would often have him tell me stories of growing up with two Moms (one of whom eventually became “Aunt”). He was the product of church-sanctioned, post-Manifesto polygamy in Mexico.
Clearly, we can say that polygamy is wrong for us today, as LDS members, because we’ve been commanded to not practice it. But are we really willing to say, for instance, that a man living in West Africa who follows social norms and has two legal wives whom he treats well is being immoral? I would tend to say no. But if not, then how can we say polygamy is intrinsically bad in all cases except for when specified otherwise by our prophet? (Of course, abuse is bad, and being forced into marriage is bad, breaking the law is generally bad, and if you’re LDS, rebelling against the authority of the church is bad.) But anyway, that’s why I, for one, am a bit conflicted about how polygamy ought to be treated, both legally and in the media.
But if not, then how can we say polygamy is intrinsically bad in all cases except for when specified otherwise by our prophet?
That is the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. I would argue that the current ban against polygamy is a malum prohibitum- meaning just that it has technically been forbidden, not that the practice in and of itself is wrong. Whereas adultery or fornication is malum in se- wrong in and of itself.
I’m not sure I can quite accept completely Geoff’s good argument that all forms of polygamy not expressly authorized by what we recognize as the Lord’s prophet are nothing more than polyamory. Sure, there are such relationships that are nothing more than polyamory, but there is also polygamy as a sincerely held religious belief.
We must keep in mind, however, that the malum in se/malum prohibitum distinction only really means anything in explaining, perhaps, why we as a Church don’t mobilize in actually fighting on a social level against polygamy. A malum prohibitum is still against the law, and if I were a prosecutor I would prosecute.
People seem to easily accept changes in doctrine when they are ancient, but have more difficulty when they are modern.
Jacob (in Jacob Chapter 2) gives one of the most unequivocal condemnations of non-divinely sanctioned polygamy in scripture. When the Lord has not commanded it, it is a “whoredom” that God considers “an abomination.”
And yet people can read this without getting confused by Old Testament polygamists because of the knowledge that sometimes God commands it, and sometimes He does not.
Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 is still in our scriptures, but so is Jacob Chapter 2. Do the two contradict each other? Not in the slightest. D&C 132, among other things, is a revelation indicating that God was commanding polygamy during the period after the revelation. Multiple statements by later prophets have made it clear that the period has ended. Jacob Chapter 2, and not the polygamy-related portions of D&C 132, are what rule our attitude toward polygamy now. In one word: Abomination.
Yes, members of the church are defensive about it, because we descend either by blood or by doctrinal tradition from polygamists. But that defensiveness arises from trying to logically argue the point on the world’s terms, such as constitutionality, privacy, family values, etc. Obviously if we debate the issue on the world’s terms, we can’t both accept Brigham Young’s polygamy and reject Tom Green’s.
But this isn’t a matter to be debated on the world’s terms. Direct revelation from God is what determines its acceptability, so no one who rejects the modern revelation and prophets will ever accept our point of view. We might as well just get comfortable with that.
Greg, I was thinking just the other day about how many people at M* feel that sarcasm doesn’t further any discussion and certainly doesn’t engender positive feelings. I disagreed with them in that context, but it seems they had a point based on your posts #8 and #17.
Jordan, I’m not sure the malum in se and malum prohibitum distinctions work for our beliefs of right and wrong. Is killing an innocent person malum in se or malum prohibitum? What if God commands it? Sin is, quite simply, not obeying God. Can any sin we might believe to be malum in se turn into malum prohibitum if God ordered us to do it?
I believe there are certain things God would never command us to do, but I find it interesting that the same two actions, to kill and to have sex with multiple partners, can be either the two worst sins one can commit or a righteous action, depending on whether God has commanded it.
I appreciate this post, because I too think polygamy is COMPLETELY immoral and vile. It is one of my biggest struggles with my faith. With all the scripture references against polygamy in the Bible and Book of Mormon; it blows my mind that is was such a tenent of the early church. Nothing infuriates me more! I do not understand polygamy or its purported benefits. I think we should stop allowing men to be sealed to more than one wife. What about the women?! I guess for you men, this is hard to understand, but polygamy is disturbing to not only me, but many women in the church. It is a HARD PILL to swallow.
I apologize for the sarcasm Geoff. I was just trying to poke fun at the certainty of your pronouncements. (“God instituted polygamy because X”; 70 years of prophetic teaching were “culture” and “justification”). For me at least, things are a bit more complicated.
With all the scripture references against polygamy in the Bible
You mean like Abraham, Isaac, and Jabob?
Has anyone ever tried to mobilize a “mormons against polygamy” task force? I would be interested to hear of the experience. If not, there is always room for organizing.
Greg, sometimes people are not as articulate as they could be or do not have space to completely express their thoughts in a small space. In blogging, there is always a battle between brevity and thoroughness. There’s no way to express all of our thoughts in this forum. Hey, I’m guilty of having been sarcastic and snarky too, but it’s something I’m trying to control. Now, perhaps I’m too earnest. Hmmm, how to find the right balance?
Jonathan,
I understand what you are saying, and I actually agree that what God commands us not to do probably becomes malum in se. But what about people who sincerely believe that they are called by God to live such a principle? How would you deal with them in mobilizing against it? In my opinion, it’s not the same as a group who sincerely believes in human sacrifice.
Hmmm… Perhaps Ryan is just trying to find out through this thread why I don’t see the two as being the same. Ali probably does, and I don’t blame her.
(idea for another thread- are there some “commandments” that are merely malum prohibitum? (like the word of wisdom ban on alcohol, perhaps?))
Jonathan and I have had many in-depth discussions on the subject of polygamy, mostly due to the fact that it has been a hard subject for me to work out. Watching the computer game “Civilization” sort of helped me take a different view.
I believe that polygamy is the fastest way to bring children up unto the Lord, but it is not the ideal. If it were the ideal, it would be the norm and monogamy would be odd. The Lord commands and controls all, and there have been times in history that he has needed to build up the members of His gospel.
I don’t have any sympathy for those who are practicing polygamy now. I think they should be rounded up and thrown in jail, because they have created and are perpetuating a perverse and coersive male-dominant existence–perhaps mostly because it is not being directed by the Lord.
I feel that polygamy today is wrong, I don’t fear it being put into practice again, and no one is going to convince me that this will be the way it is in the Celestial kingdom until the Lord tells me this is so.
Doesn’t Jacob 2 indicate that polygamy is the exception, not the rule? Doesn’t it also indicate that cultural polygamy (like that in Africa) is not approved by the Lord?
For those for whom polygamy is depraved when not sanctioned by God’s prophets, how is marriage without sealing different?
For myself, since the Church once vigorously defended its practice of polygamy as a religious freedom, and since we respect the rights of all to practice their religion, I am unable to oppose its practice by apostates or Muslims.
For the record, I’m not a Mormon, but my beliefs about polygamy have nothing to do with religion. A very close Mormon friend of mine once explained to me that polygamy is not the “natural” lifestyle of members of his faith. He did say that from time to time, God commands it because he has decided that it is necessary and appropriate. Does this fit with your doctrinal understanding?
Personally, I abhor polygamy, since it tends to treat women as social inferiors. Men are permitted multiple wives, but a given woman can only be married to one man. It seems sexist and inherently unfair. In its modern incarnation, it spawns poverty, poor living conditions, and opportunities for abuse.
Polygamy may have once been a step up for women, since it increased the chances that a woman would have a provider and protector in a male-dominated world. However, we’re pretty well past that, and these days, polygamy should be rejected because of the economic and social hardships it causes. A religious belief that attempts to justify those kinds of living conditions can’t be a healthy one.
Greg Call,
I just realized that your grandfather was the same man who taught my Preparing to teach the Gospel class at BYU years ago, the semester before I went on my mission. I remember him occasionally talking about his experiences in Mexico as well, though the memory is more vague than specific. I also remember that at that same time the Church was occasionally sending him to Mexico on trips. He was a nice man.
I think polygamy is fine among consenting adults. We’re told we’re not supposed to practice polygamy now, but I have no problem with the idea of reinstituting polygamy if it becomes legal. What I do have a huge problem with is, if polygamy is restored, the Church telling us that we have to practice polygamy to get into the celestial kingdom (unless this is really true doctrine, and in that case, I guess I probably wouldn’t be going to the CK).
Anyway, I don’t really care if a man has more than one “wife”. In my many travels around the world and varied life experiences, I’ve met numerous people who are living in semi-polygamous relationships with multiple sex partners and children of different fathers born to one woman. As long as there is no abuse, and people are old enough to consent to this lifestyle, why should we condemn it?
Tess, one of my biggest objections to polygamy is that it puts the children of those unions at a disadvantage. In past ages, people with large families could get by much easier because they could produce much of what they needed on their own – growing food, making clothing, building houses, etc. Today, we live in a world where people can no longer provide everything they need and two income families struggle to make ends meet.
Simply put, it’s just not practical. Who is going to make the money to support all the children that come from polygamous unions? Who is going to feed, clothe, shelter, and care for them? Where does the money come from? Polygamous communities in the US are riddled with examples of extreme poverty and very poor living conditions.
I can’t conceive of a religion that would see any virtue in mandating that people should live like that. I’m not saying we all have to have McMansions, a Lexus, and a Harvard education, but polygamous lifestyles seem to have real difficulty in meeting basic needs in our society.
John Mansfield: For those for whom polygamy is depraved when not sanctioned by God’s prophets, how is marriage without sealing different?
It seems that is precisely what Joseph Smith believed. No?
I agree with you, Sevumar. But a similar situation happens in divorce all the time. After divorce, the father of the children is then required to pay child support. We as a society have chosen not to outlaw divorce, even though the effects on children of divorce are severe. So why outlaw polygamy based on these financial concerns?
Danithew:
My grandfather, Helaman Pratt Call (does it get more Mormon that that?) never set foot on BYU campus, as far as I know. You were probably taught by one of his cousins. Needless to say, he had a LOT of cousins.
Tess, at least when people are made to pay child support, the economic issues are being addressed as best they can. Divorce is a necessary evil – it’s an effort to bring closure to a bad situation. Polygamy is not about getting out of a bad situation, but entering into one. Divorce attempts to solve a problem while polygamy seems to offer no benefits for anyone involved, except perhaps the man.
Greg, ha … I just remembered that Bro. Call used to teach a class and that he talked about his experiences with “more than one Mom” in Mexico. It was a unique experience to hear someone talk about being a child in a polygamous family from personal experience. I thought for sure he was your grandpa. My bad.
I certainly don’t see the benefit for women to enter into polygamous relationships, but apparently there are some. Or maybe these women are just so desperate to have a man that they will take what they can get.
I think the question is what level of government involvement in our sexual lives do we feel comfortable with? Polygamy may be against the law right now, but, if you look at where the jurisprudence is going these days, maybe polygamy will have a comeback sooner than we think. If we believe people should be free to have sex with whomever or whatever they want to (which seems to be where the US Supreme Court is going), then it becomes harder to say that polygamy should be illegal. So, therefore, the economic effects of polygamy will have to be dealt with, just like the economic effects of divorce are dealt with. It would be great if no one had to get divorced, just like it would be great if no one wanted to be in polygamous relationships, but if we respect peoples’ rights to sexual and personal freedom, then we have to deal with the adverse consequences of the exercise of these rights the best we can.
Tess, in this case I’d have to say that the rights of children not to grow up in extreme poverty supercede the rights of people to sleep with whomever they want. I can see my way to approving of polygamy if people agreed to demonstrate some kind of responsibility with regard to childbearing, but when was the last time you saw a childless polygamous family?
The sad truth is that the behaviors and attitudes that lead to polygamy also put them on the road to abnormally large families, creating just the conditions I was talking about. There’s already a big enough problem in less modern parts of the world with people having large families that they cannot support (in traditional marriages), so why pile polygamy on top of it?
Research does show that education about limiting family size leads to better living conditions for everyone. It’s a hard sell to advocate enforcement of it, but the simple fact is that quality of life is much better in smaller families when people can afford to take care of the few children they have. Those children grow up to lead happier, more productive lives with fewer problems in many areas.
Danithew,
It is a rare experience to hear about polygamy first hand, one that’s soon to vanish completely. The very latest church-sanctioned polygamous marriages occurred between 1900-1910, and the church soon thereafter required polygamous families to split up, so anyone that spent any appreciable time as a child in such an arrangement is approaching 100, at least.
Yep, I agree, but the US Supreme Court recognizes the rights of adults to engage in sexual behavior as fundamental and guaranteed by the US Constitution. There is no fundamental right of children not to be born into poverty.
Tess, there are all kinds of rights that have been read into the Constitution’s text that aren’t explicitly stated there. The right to bear arms is limited in a very specific and very important way by the Constitution, yet we’ve chosen to ignore it and interpret it in a much wider context.
Civil law recognizes promiscuity and alienation of affection as valid ground for divorce.
The government routinely takes children away from adults (including couples) who live under the kinds of conditions polygamy can lead to. It’s not too big of a leap to see a neglect or child endangerment charge stemming from the inability of the parents to meet their parental obligations. Polygamists don’t hide the fact that they desire large families, though they cannot provide for them.
The real issue is that maybe polygamy is not realy of god. DC 132 just does not make any sense and feels like a justifcation for Smith to get some action when Emma was not probley giving him any ( not to be crude) but that what it sounds like. The whole spritual wifery going on in Navuoo sound more like celetrial wife swapping. Read v 41 to 44 if a women committ adultry she shall be destroyed but if a man does well but a man does the same thing well he is not to be destroyed. The church couldn’t go any where until they stoped practicing this made up doctorine. Furthermore, the were still doing plural marrigae in the SLC until the 1920 40 years after the manifesto.
Polygamy without divine sanction is not just like marriage without a sealing. The latter is a recognized marriage by God, in that it is legal and lawful. The former is a “whoredom” and an “abomination”, according to God himself.
Only the philosophies of men would lead someone to the kind of moral equivalence of saying, “Since we believe it is acceptable sometimes, I can’t condemn it when someone else does it.”
Equivalence? Do you believe in modern day prophets, or don’t you? Why are you afraid to speak as Jacob would and call it an abomination? Why is anyone afraid to condemn it as the wicked sin it is, regardless of the intentions of those who practice it? The reality is that non-divinely sanctioned polygamy today is lead and perpetuated by false prophets and without the influence of the Spirit, and sadly has led to abusive situations that children and wives often find inescapable. It is wrong, wicked, and evil.
Are the polygamists today using the same arguments that early church leaders used to justify polygamy? Yes. But the key difference is that the early church leaders were inspired and right, and the polygamists today are dead wrong. I realize that this line of reasoning is unacceptable to those outside the church, but I think it is most important line of reasoning in determining how we as Latter-day Saints should feel toward the practice.
Jonathan,
The “pligs” believe that they have a special mission to practice plg until the second coming. They believe that John Taylor gave a secrete commandment to a group of individuals that there will always be a group of people to practice it, and though they will be disavowed by the church they will be redeemed in the end. Most of their homes look like any Mormon home in Utah and have pictures of the prophet standerd works and go to the distribution center and get all the teaching material. But they justify themselves with the secret commandment. But they do believe that Kimball was misleading re: blacks and the priesthood. But they still will watch conference
Tess, one of the purposes of the law is to balance personal freedoms against community interests. When the Constitution was written, there was a much different standard of acceptable social behavior than there is today. The founders never in their wildest dreams imagined a future where the Supreme Court would be striking down anti-sodomy laws, for example. There was a consensus that certain behavior was appropriate and other behavior was inappropriate. The founders have made it very clear that they considered traditional religious teachings (against salacious private behavior) necessary to maintaining the republic. Yes, nobody wants to be a busybody, and I personally don’t care much about what people do in their own bedrooms. But there are effects for society as large for private behavior. If a kid spends all of his time in his room doing drugs (private behavior that doesn’t directly affect me), there are affects on society as a whole that are not obvious but nevertheless are real. It will affect his parents, his siblings, his friends. The money he spends on drugs could have been spent in more positive ways (helping other areas of the economy, saving for college, etc). And he helps maintain a series of drug dealers and pushers. So, all of the sudden, private behavior (drug use), DOES have negative affects on society. And if you multiply one kid by 5 million, all of the sudden you’ve got a real problem on your hands.
The same thing applies to issues of sexual morality. If one man decides to practice consensual polygamy (really polyamory), he is engaging in a private consensual sexual behavior that is in one sense none of my business. But in another, it has a whole series of affects on society. As Sevumar points out, what about the kids? What about affects on other family members? What about neighbors who have to raise kids around people who are living a degenerate lifestyle? What are future generations of kids being taught about human sexuality and the relationship of a man with women? What about all of the reports of polygamous men wanting to marry pretty 14-year-old girls who are the products of polygamous relationships? The list goes on and on.
My take is that it is legitimate for government to restrict some forms of private behavior when it is better for the society at large. What determines this? The law. And polygamy is illegal for many reasons, most of them very good ones.
Sevumar and Geoff B – I agree that personal choices affect society, and that we as a society have chosen to sanction some of these personal choices and punish other choices. The same arguments about the breakdown of the family and negative effects on society were used in the same sex marriage debate, and these arguments lost. No matter what you or I think about polygamy, same sex marriage, etc., these practices will be allowed if the US Supreme Court decides they should be allowed. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with them, or indulge in these practices ourselves.
I don’t see why Jacob’s teachings should be the final word on polygamy, particularly when his assessment of David and Solomon’s wickedness is flatly contradicted by Joseph Smith in Section 132. The exiled Lehites had some hard feelings toward Israel and deliberately abandoned their former culture.
As for my appeal to the philosophies of men, the men I am appealing to are the prophets and apostles who for decades told the U.S. it was no one else’s business if Mormons were polygamists. Does the respect for religious freedom that we proclaim entail no more than everyone’s right to follow God’s prophets?
As for following the living prophets (Jacob isn’t one), see President Hinckley’s statement from the October 1998 conference, quoted above in comment #10. Nothing there about unsanctioned polygamy being a depraved abomination, just illegal and apostate.
It may well be that sanctioned polygamy has only an eternal sociological reason, and that it may not be true for the vast majority of celestial marriages. If one postulates that there will be more women than men deserving of the highest degree of glory, then in the justice of God none would be denied their entry into that kingdom because of the lack of a worthy mate. But the difference could be quite small, therefore not requiring the general extension of that principle to all.
But I have faith that none would enter into that without being totally at peace with the idea, regardless of how we might argue, quibble and nitpick about it here.
John, I think you’re exactly right in your second paragraph regarding how we should view those who practice polygamy. Civilly, Mormons must decide if they support religious freedom broadly or just the equivalent of “you’re free to worship Allah according to the manner prescribed by the cleric we tell you.” Basically, it’s a rehash of the 19th century argument between the Mormons and the anti-polygamy crusaders. Should the crusaders have respected our religious liberty, or stamped out what they believed to be an abominable practice?
Tess, I’m not willing to concede that we have “lost” the SSM debate yet. SSM is legal in only one state and illegal in 49. The arguments that I put forth in #49 apply equally to SSM — it is not in society’s interests to further normalize homosexual behavior, which is one of the reasons I oppose it. I will concede, however, that we are on a slippery slope toward either country-wide legalized SSM or legalization in 10-15 “blue” states in the next 10 years or so. There will be a whole series of negative affects on society when this happens.
P.S. I don’t want to hijack this thread toward SSM, but I think the above point is relevant.
Tell me what I am missing:
In the state of Utah there are undoubtedly hundreds (if not thousands) of men who have multiple sexual partners to whom they have made no type of commitmment, religious or civil, and whose children they may or may not support. Except for the lack of child support, this is legal (or, if not legal, at least not the subject of any serious prosecutions).
Once such a man enters into a religious covenant with more than one of his sexual partners, committing to support any resulting children, he becomes a criminal (or, in the alternative, the target of politically motivated prosecution).
We’ve seen this movie before.
Hi, Geoff-
We don’t have to talk about SSM, but we can talk about the arguments made in defense of SSM and against SSM, and how they are relevant to the arguments made for and against polygamy. Would that still be a threadjack?
Looking at the arguments made in Goodridge and in Lawrence v. Texas, the arguments about the negative effects on society aren’t taken very seriously – or at least as seriously as the arguments in favor of freedom of sexual expression. So, we have to come up with a better argument against polygamy than the children will suffer. Personally, I think the children should be the focus of the SSM and polygamy issues, but that’s not what the courts think.
This may be too much of a tangent, but in Brown vs. Board of Education (the school segregation case), the court was persuaded by social science data that showed that young black girls thought that the white dolls were prettier and preferable to the black dolls. The argument was that low self esteem was a direct result of segregated schools. I don’t know how this data and argument played into the US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the separate but equal doctrine in schools, but it’s interesting that now the Court discounts similar social science data showing homosexual relationships are harmful to others.
Anyway, this is a very complicated issue that I don’t know enough about, but I feel strongly that opponents of SSM and polygamy are going to have to find more persuasive ways to advance these causes than saying the children will suffer, or that these practices are “wrong”…
The reason we Mormons don’t get more exercised about the societal ills of polygamy is that there are too many other social evils to fight vociferously–low-stakes poker games, for example.
According to an interesting paper presented at the 2003 Meeting of the Mormon History Association, entitled Polygamy, Positivism, and Natural Law, presented by someone named Nathan Oman, when arguing the church’s position before the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the defense argued a sophisticated understanding of constitutional law based upon the Natural Law tradition.
In 1879, George Q. Cannon published a small book entitled A Review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Case of George Reynolds vs. the United States which sets forth what might be considered an LDS theory of religious freedom based on natural law.
In Reynolds they argued that religious actions that were simply mallum prohibitum were exempt from criminal law as guaranteed by the Constitution’s freedom of religion clause. Religious actions that were mallum in se, could be forbidden and criminalized. They argued that polygamy was merely mallum prohibitum and therefore the government could not prohibit the religious practice thereof, whereas something like ritualized human sacrifice was mallum in se and therefore could be prohibited and criminalized by the government, even if it was part of a religion.
The Supreme Court rejected the natural law argument in the Reynolds decision and instead adopted a positive law position rooted in the utilitarianism of Jeremy Betham, in clear contradiction to the basis for the anti-slavery movement, which based its arguments squarely on a natural law understand of constitutional law.
(Though I cannot find it online anymore, I have a PDF copy of Polygamy, Positivism, and Natural Law if anyone is interested in reading it)
In any case, if Nathan is right, at least in its legal position before the supreme court, and in its justification for its civil disobedience before the official declaration, the church apparently maintained that polygamy was mallum prohibitum and not mallum in se.
That is an interesting explanation of why Mormon polygamy was illegal. But what about polygamy not associated with any religion? Just one guy and a bunch of women who want to get married and live together?
Danithew-
That does add some interesting insight re how the church has viewed polygamy in the past (as malum prohibitum).
I think the mallum in se v. mallum prohibitum dichotomy, while helpful, largely misses the point.
There’s another way to have a behavior be sometimes good and sometimes bad: when God changes his commandments about it. Thus, while we all agree that killing is bad per se, it ceases to be so when God commands Nephi to do it. Thus, the moral meaning of the act is contingent not on whether it is prohibited or not, but on the context of the act. One element of context is whether God commands it or not. Again, it’s important to emphasize that just because an act becoms permissible when God commands it, that doesn’t mean the act was bad when he didn’t command it simply because it was prohibited. Killing is wrong, not because it’s forbidden, but because it’s wrong.
And so it is with polygamy. I enjoyed Johnathan Stone’s sharp reproof above (#47), because it seems to be inspired by the moral courage that I think is needed here. If we can deal with the ambiguity suggested by Nephi’s encounter with Laban’s nape, why can’t we deal with it here? Can’t polygamy be malum in se, except when commanded of God (I know it’s a hard distinction, but if you’ll focus on what I said in my first paragraph, I think it makes sense).
So, of course President Hinckley, in a nationally publicized interview, is not going to take the same tack as Jacob did, when speaking to a small group of the converted. That’s because, no matter how logical our position, it’s impossible to sell in soundbites, because it’s very complicated, and comes off as hypocritical.
Still, I think there’s a great deal of support for the position that polygamy is simply, unequivocally wrong, in the same way that killing is wrong– which can, of course, be altered by the command of God. Instead of bad because it’s prohibited, it’s good because it’s endorsed.
Of course, John Mansfield’s response in #51 gets at the heart of another matter: what do we think about religious freedom? Well, there’s no question that we all believe that religious freedom should be trumped in matters of human sacrifice and probably bestiality. So the fact that some of us are willing to keep polygamy legal on religious freedom grounds suggests that we don’t think it’s as bad as some of those other things. Which is fine (we think adultery is pretty bad, but we’re not trying to get it outlawed). My concern is just that we are too ready to excuse polygamy because it’s too complicated to make a rational non-hypocritical argument against it. But I think such an argument is possible, important, and morally compelled.
“(we think adultery is pretty bad, but we’re not trying to get it outlawed)”
That’s because adultery is already against the law in many states. These laws are just not enforced. Although I heard a very interesting story on NPR yesterday about a woman who was fired from her job for living with her boyfriend. I guess North Carolina has laws against co-habitation, and since this woman was working for the Sherriff’s Office, her bosses thought that she shouldn’t be flouting the laws by living with her boyfriend. The ACLU is defending her case.
Ryan,
Now that we have no doubt where you stand, I would like to speak up one more time for the malum distinctions. I was using that to try to answer your question about why Mormons might feel skittish about not speaking up more strongly against polygamy. Even if most LDS haven’t got a clue about malum in se versus malum prohibitum, they may have an idea or assumption that the current ban against polygamy is malum prohibitum in nature, which is why they don’t stand as strongly against that as they do against, say, SSM.
The issue as I see it is that many LDS don’t see polygamy practiced religiously as being “wrong, immoral, and depraved.” Perhaps they reason that if it were, then the Lord would never have commanded it in the first place, and there would never be any discussion of that principle being practiced in that place which is the LDS zenith of eternal goals.
You, however, are starting from the (justified) assumption that polygamy is just that wrong. That changes the way you look at the issue, beginning with your incredulity at LDS unwilling to take a strong stand. So you ask why we think they don’t.
My answer is that I don’t think LDS take a hard stand against polygamy (1) because they don’t see it as inherently “wrong, immoral, and depraved,” (2) as you said, they have some self-identification issues and don’t want to seem hypocritical, and (3) not only do they not see it as inherently “wrong, immoral, and depraved,” but they see it as a principle which will be practiced in the eternities, whether or not this is “doctrinally correct.”
If a stronger stance against polygamy is “morally compelled,” what should that stance entail? Public lobbying to make sure it stays illegal? Lobbying government to forcibly break up religiously polygamous families?
Of course, none of this really matters much because the Lord through his prophet has told us not to live this principle.
“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Does that entail a requirement to speak against those who don’t with regards to living the principle of polygamy? How does that fit in with our notions of religious tolerance, discussed in recent General Conferences and in the 11th article of faith?
“Of course, none of this really matters much because the Lord through his prophet has told us not to live this principle.”
Sorry that I keep interrupting, but I’m fascinated by this discussion. The Lord has only told us that we can’t live polygamy right now. Not that polygamy is bad. Right? I think in order to put this issue to rest, there should be some sort of doctrinal statement, included in the D&C after OD1, that polygamy is wrong when the prophets tell you not to practice it. What we have right now is Section 132 and a press release saying that we’re not practicing polygamy anymore because the Supreme Court won’t let us. So, of course we shouldn’t be demonizing people who practice polygamy. It is part of our heritage, and our doctrine. Mormons don’t like to acknowlege this, but polygamy has never been doctrinally renounced. And our current temple practices indicate that polygamy is alive and well. It will be interesting to see what the Church says when polygamy becomes legal.
Since many of you believe polygamy is depraived and corrupt, what do you think the ramifications would be if the church brought it back. I personally know I could not deal.
Ryan wrote: “Still, I think there’s a great deal of support for the position that polygamy is simply, unequivocally wrong, in the same way that killing is wrong.”
Look, my instinct is that polygamy is wrong, per se. I think most people living in Western societies have had the same intuition for centuries. But But how do you deal with Section 132? This revelation is in no way analogous to the spirit commanding Nephi to slay Laban. Nor is it analogous to the priesthood ban. It is presented as a fundamental principle and crowning doctrine of the restoration. No prophet since has ever distanced us from this statement, and the doctrine has never been excised from the fabric of the restored gospel. We’ve only been told that we no longer practice it (in this life, that is; apparently some men are still being sealed to more than one wife for time and all eternity). I don’t believe all these prophets have been playing PR games and that they secretly believe that “polygamy is wrong in the same way that killing is wrong.” As I said earlier to Geoff, I think things are a bit more complicated than that. If you really believe that polygamy is akin to murder, I think you’ve got to either interpose qualifications in the Lord’s unqualified statements in Section 132, or accept that our prophets’ claimed revelations aren’t always divine.
President Hinckley said every one of the issues he addressed in that 1998 talk would be worthy of a full discourse. Not worthy enough, however, for his polygamy discourse to have ever been given. If there is has been any denouncing of polygamy by Church leaders on any basis other than apostasy, I would be interested to hear of it. Otherwise, who are those condemning polygamy really siding with? I may be reading too much into this, but it seems like the sort of concern that would arise out of wanting to be more popular with socio-political allies in the religious right. Sorry, even without polygamy, they still won’t admit you as full members of the club.
Just curious – does anyone know the standard answer missionaries give out when investigators ask about polygamy? I can’t imagine polygamy is brought up by the missionaries independently, but what happens if someone asks whether or not the Church still “believes” in polygamy? Seems to me that the answer is yes, but I’m sure this would turn off a lot of converts (on second thought, maybe not).
“what happens if someone asks whether or not the Church still “believes” in polygamy? Seems to me that the answer is yes, but I’m sure this would turn off a lot of converts”
But our church doesn’t believe in polygamy. We believe in following the prophet we have today.
Mari- I think that’s a fair answer, but I think the question asked by the investigator is whether or not the Church would ever re-establish polygamy. It’s pretty clear that the Catholic church wouldn’t establish polygamy, but the question about Mormons “believing” in polygamy reveals the fact that polygamy is still doctrinal in our church. It’s frustrating that we can’t come to terms with that fact, and that people keep trying to come up with all kinds of justifications to say that we’ll never have to practice polygamy, etc. Polygamy is in our scriptures and in our temples. Of course, Mormons “believe” in polygamy. We’re not allowed to practice it now because it is against the law. That’s what it says in the Official Declarations.
It seems pretty clear that modern prophets have said that polygamy today is wrong given that a person practicing polygamy today is excommunicated and that the public affairs group of the Church spends a significant amount of time correcting many newspaper stories out there when a polygamist claims he is a Mormon. That’s as much proof as I need that the Church and the prophets have rejected polygamy for now. Will it eventually be reinstituted? Maybe, but I’ll worry about that when the future prophet announces it.
Geoff – I think the examples you give are a necessity from a PR standpoint. And, probably from the standpoint of converting people to the Church. I wish the Church leaders would be more clear on this and other issues. Yes, we believe in polygamy. Great! Fine! We can handle it! No, you shouldn’t use birth control. Okay! At least we know what we’re supposed to be doing! Instead, there is too much speculation and confusion (and judging).
Sorry, I think this will be my last post on the subject. I’m getting too worked up here.
Ryan (and others), I’m wondering what it is specifically about polygamy that you find reprehensible? (I don’t disagree, necessarily; just interested in the reasons for your revulsion.)
I get worked up about this, too, Tess. Are the leaders just telling us what we want to hear? I long for the truth. We prohibit polygamy, but the leaders do not repudiate its past practice and they leave section 132 intact. I agonize over the treatment of polygamous wives by priesthood holders, but the church never acknowledges the hardship or the suffering it caused. And the temple policies? Don’t get me started.
Rosalynde, the answer to your question is complicated. My feeling of revulsion for things like adultery and fornication is visceral, the product of a conscience that is formed not only by the spirit but by years of lessons and discussions and Mormon conditioning. My view of polygamy does not contain the same emotional sense of wrongness, probably because we haven’t had the same discussions about it as we’ve had on the other sexual sins. So yes, while I believe that polygamy without divine endorsement (Let’s say PWODE, for ease of use) is wrong, I can’t claim to feel that it’s wrong, and that lack of feeling is part of what was troubling me when I wrote this post.
That said, when I really think about it, I conclude that there are good reasons to believe that polygamy is wrong. First of all, I put more stock in the longstanding conventions of civilization than do most, and I think that the norm of monogamous marriage that has served us well for the last thousand years of Western Civilization is superior to all others. It’s clear that polygamy is an antecedent to many abuses, trivial and pivotal, and almost always seems to diminish the self-determination of women. And yet I realize that the possibility of abuse is not an argument against the intrinsic morality of an act, otherwise I’d have to oppose much of our criminal justice system. I suppose I make my stand on the ideas, supported in scripture and society, that a man should have only one wife, that the desire for more than one wife is most often motivated by lust or megalomania, and that the purposes of marriage can only be realized by a union of two souls, one male and one female.
Lest I be misconstrued, I don’t think that any of the above precludes the possibility that God could make it a good thing if he wanted to endorse it, as he has in the past. But saying that is akin to saying that he has made killing or other sins acceptable in certain specialized instances. Thus, I make no argument against early-church polygamy.
Still, I confess I’m a bit flummoxed by Greg’s insistent reliance on Section 132. Practice is so much easier to wave away than canon.
By the way, Tess and Mari, I doubt that more than five percent of missionaries would ever tell an investigator that we still believe in polygamy. I told them unequivocally that we did not, and it’s my guess that almost every other missionary does the same. I understand now that the issue is more muddy than all that, but my answer was honest at the time, for all I knew. Is my guess true for at least the rest of the Porto Portugal mission, Rosalynde?
But Ryan, killing has not ever been discussed as an eternal principle the way in which I have at times heard polygamy discussed. Thus, I think the two situations, i.e. urging Nephi to kill Laban versus allowing the early LDS to practice polygamy are completely different. Sure both were dependent on context, but one is not praised in the LDS canon as a staple of the eternities.
Section 132 and other teachings make (or at least imply) polygamy a principle of eternal marriage. Is there any similar church teaching putting murder/killing on a similar footing? It seems like the starting assumptions are completely different.
I agree about the ills of polygamy you mentioned, and, as I have said before, if I were a prosecutor I would prosecute polygamists with impunity.
Ryan,
In dealing with polygamy, I think “flummoxed” is a good word. Despite our wishes, there are no answers that do not do violence to either history, or revelation, or our moral intuition.
Okay, I’m back. I don’t find polygamy reprehensible. What I find reprehensible is women and girls being forced into polygamous relationships, and their children being forced into poverty depending on whether or not the father liked your mother over his other wives (isn’t there a Bible story about this?).
I think if polygamy had a more positive history of adult women and adult men consciously making a decision to share each other and live together for the good of the family, we would all think better of the practice. As it was, 14 year old girls like my great, great, great, grandmother were married to 45 year old men and forced to bear 15 children. This is reprehensible.
In today’s society, at least in U.S. society, women have rights and more power than they did 150 years ago. I honestly wouldn’t mind if polygamy were made legal today, because I have choices and power to determine whether or not I want to engage in polygamy without worrying whether or not I’d be able to support myself. And if I felt the Lord wanted my husband to take more wives, then I’d have the spiritual assurance that this was the right thing to do, and would probably allow it.
However, I think polygamy is sort of like Marxism, human emotions such as selfishness and jealousy make the application of these doctrines impossible in practice, no matter how high minded and beneficial these doctrines may be (or not).
I don’t think we need to conflate our attitude with something with the law, or what we think the law should be. It is possible for someone to condemn drinking, adultery, or polygamy emphatically as a serious sin, even while supporting its legality.
I understand those who oppose legal prohibitions on polygamy based on sympathy with the Church’s plight in the late 1800s. There is plenty of room for debate on the legality issue. However, I don’t think there is room for debate on the moral issue. God has in no uncertain terms labelled unsanctioned polygamy as a sin, whether through the mouth of Jacob or President Hinckley. Jacob’s words were stronger, but both condemn it. Some have mentioned that recent prophets haven’t said anything more than calling it apostate and saying it results in excommunication.
Excommunication? How many sins are there that are serious enough to get you excommunicated, to remove the Spirit from your life and deprive you of all temple promises? I wouldn’t say that modern prophets are declining comment on the issue.
So whether you believe it should be legal or not, I don’t see why some people are reluctant to condemn it as a serious sin, called such by prophets both ancient and modern. Perhaps it is because too many people confuse their legal reasoning with their moral reasoning.
I am not reluctant to condemn unsanctioned polygamy as a serious sin. I have only been discussing LDS reluctance to take a stand for stricter legal sanctions against it.
Jordan, thanks for clarifying your position. I think it is an important distinction. Ryan’s original post didn’t say he was talking about the Church taking a political position. In fact, there are tons of great reasons why the Church wouldn’t take a firm political stand against polygamy, not the least of which is the Church’s general reluctance to take a political stand on any issue.
If you start from the premise that the Church will not take a firm political opinion on anything that is not a real, grave moral threat to families and society, then it is easy to see why so-called same sex marriage gets attention and polygamy does not. There are far fewer polygamists than homosexuals, and so-called same sex marriage is a larger break from traditional and historical societal attitudes towards marriage and procreation. Polygamy simply isn’t a severe or prominent enough societal threat to cause the Church to take a political position.
Laws do not define morality, and the Church leadership would be the first to say that there are serious sins that are not and should not be illegal. But the fact that something is legal shouldn’t prevent us from condemning it.
B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Chapter CXXXV, vol. 5, p. 299:
Ryan, if polygamy is reprehensible, why do we permit celestial polygamy? If polygamy is wrong, why do we continue to allow men to be sealed to more than one woman in the temple? Every time a man is sealed to another wife after the death of his first wife, that is church sanctioned polygamy. I am flabbergasted that you would pretend that the church does not sanction and support polygamy as an eternal concept.
I have heard from a number of people that “celestial polygamy” is no longer practiced, i.e., the Church no longer eternally marries (i.e., temple married) one man to more than one woman (i.e., a widower can no longer be eternally married to his second wife, he is married for time, not eternity, to her).
The change in policy apparently occurred a few years ago because when couples who were eternally married in temple were getting civil divorces and then the husbands were commonly refusing to release the sealing on the women so they could get eternally married to some other guy. As a result, the policy changed so that men could only be eternally married to one woman at a time to force the guys to release the women so they could be eternally married to someone else too. Kind of ugly.
Can anyone confirm or deny this and cite something more than hearsay?
As an aside, why do people get so worked up about this polygamy stuff? I mean, come on, none of us have any first-hand experience with it.
Sue, you’ve misread me. I’ve never made any intimation that would support the conclusions you’ve made about my arguments. I am well aware of the church’s doctrines on polygamy, and have always drawn a careful distinction between polygamy that is entered under the direction of God, that polygamy that isn’t. It’s that that isn’t that I’m concerned with. And that was an eight word sentence with three “thats.”
I think Greg says it best: “Despite our wishes, there are no answers that do not do violence to either history, or revelation, or our moral intuition.” That seems to me about exactly right; thanks, Greg, for putting it so succinctly and movingly.
Ryan, thanks for elaborating on your position. As for me, I feel that social formations are pretty flexible, so I can conceive of polygynous arrangments that wouldn’t necessarily violate what Greg calls our “moral intuition,” as long as they are represent one possible formation among several. But once polygyny is codified structurally and ideologically–that is, once it elevates its uniques structural features to the normative position–then it becomes difficult for me to see how it could be practiced without its structural inequality manifesting itself systematically. (Unfortunately, that’s precisely the place where early Mormon doctrine and practice puts us.)
I agree with Tess (79) and Rosalynde (87), there is a possibility that polygynous arrangements (nice phrase, Rodalynde!) could be possible, but human nature just doesn’t let us get there. There is simply too much a history of abuses of the system.
On the other hand, it seems to me odd that society throws up its hands when considering the issues of men fathering children with several women without any marriage relationship, but readily condemns the similar situation when the man acutally marries more than one of his baby-mommas. The legitimacy that being born into a marriage gives children deserves some consideration, I believe. Access to health insurance through the father’s employer comes immediately to mind. But then my expperience is with military members, for whose children access to well-baby health care for the child’s first year is free (no co-pay even if not in a military facility). Every situation is unique, but I see a lot of unwed mothers whose situation would be much better (for their children, at least), if there was a marriage there.
The answer I always give on the subject of polygamy is that yes, we did practice it, but officially gave up the practice over 100 years ago, and it is one of the few things a person can do that will automatically result in excommunication.
Ryan, interesting post. I missed it first time around, but picked it up from Steve’s latest Zeitgeist.
I’m uncomfortable with the glib explanation that polygamy was wonderful and moral after 1852, when formally recognized by the Church, but an abomination after 1905, when finally rescinded under Joseph F. Smith. It just seems like one’s moral evaluation of polygamy must rest on one’s sense of morality rather than on the calendar date.
If this is true, then it probably comes as a shock to my dad, who was married, so far as I am aware, for time and all eternity to his second wife (my mother passed away back in 2001).
Dave (#89):
I disagree. For example, for me, engaging in sexual intercourse would have been immoral on December 8, 1989 (the day before my wedding day) but not immoral on December 10, 1989. Same act, different date. One immoral, the other pefectly moral. You may say that not only the date had changed–that an intervening act of some significance occurred between the 8th and 10th of December and that this intervening act changes the calculus. You would be correct. But just as the ritual act of a wedding ceremony conducted by one with proper authority could change the nature of an act from moral to immoral, so the act of one having authority can (and did) change plural marriage from immoral, to moral, and back to immoral. The doctrine really has not changed and I (for one, there are those here in the ‘nacle who disagree) see no meaningful contradiction between Jacob 2 and D&C 132. The default position is that polygamy is immoral and not to be practiced. The Lord, through his servants, can change this, at which point polygamy that is approved by the proper priesthood channels becomes moral. The Lord can later revoke the command, at which point polygamy becomes immoral once again. So, yes, determining whether polygamy is moral or immoral does depend on the date on the calendar–in relation to the date on which the Lord’s most recent revelation on the subject has been recieved by his authorized servant.
A man can be sealed to more than one woman and a woman can be sealed to more than one man – except if both of those involved in the first sealing are still living. In this case a cancellation of the first sealing must occur. If one of the partners has died then a man or a woman can be sealed to more than one person.
Larry said, “A man can be sealed to more than one woman and a woman can be sealed to more than one man – except if both of those involved in the first sealing are still living. In this case a cancellation of the first sealing must occur. If one of the partners has died then a man or a woman can be sealed to more than one person.”
I believe that is incorrect on a few levels.
I have a friend who’s husband is sealed for “time and all eternity” to both her and his first wife (who is still living).
A woman, however, cannot be sealed for “time and all eternity” to more than one man no matter if they are living or dead. If her spouse to whom she is sealed for “time and all eternity” is dead, she may be sealed for “time” to another spouse and that’s it.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong on these points.
1. What is the Mormon view of polygamy, the kind not practiced under the direction of the church? That it’s not condoned by God at this time.
2. If we agree that polygamy is a deeply depraved practice, is there any chance Mormons could ever become a strong voice against it (assuming, as several media sources do, that polygamy is on the rise)? We do not agree that it is a deeply depraved practice therefore the only thing we will say against it is it is not condoned at this time.
3. If there is no chance of Mormons ever becoming strong advocates against polygamy, is that simply because we believe we’d have a weak moral position in making the argument, or because we silently suspect that we may return someday to the principle, and want to leave the legal doorway open, just in case? Yes, we do have a weak moral position in the eyes of others. As for the legality, it didn’t stop us from practicing it before when it was illegal so if the commandment is given again, the law doesn’t really matter.
Question of my own. How does the church handle polygamous families that join the church now? Be they in Africa or St. George Utah, does the church demand they split up? If so, does the church provide for the welfare of the additional spouses and their families?
Adeline, you’re absolutely correct. Men can be sealed to countless women, living or dead. Well, as many as they can divorce, I guess, although perhaps the brethren would frown on all those divorces.
My second husband was sealed to his first wife, then to me, at the same time he was sealed to his third wife. Bum. I’m going to go pee on his grave the first chance I get.
My third, and current, husband is sealed to his former wife. I don’t mind, she’s one of my best friends. I figure she can do the housework and have the kids in the celestial kingdom.
Women can be sealed to all the men to whom they were married in life when all parties are deceased. They just can’t be sealed to more than one husband when the wife is still alive. Many women believe this means polyandry AND polygamy will thus exist into the eternities. An interesting discussion on this ensues on FAIR’s web discussion board here:
http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=9574
Greg Call
Post manifest Polygamy. email me at bobmelissabell At yahoo.com
Want to run a story by you. That involves my family
i would just like to throw something out there and it is that do we obey the law of man over the law of God? i believe when scriptures talk about the laws of the land it is referring to the unalienable right and constitutional law that we have. when wicked men make wicked laws today unknowingly trying to thrwart the work of God to move forward. one more thing, if we read back in history the church was being persecuted heavily and congress passed a law saying polygamy was unconstitutional and that was the real reason why they stopped. After they stopped the church became friends with and shook hand with the world. more info. was the ZSL documentary of “Utah, the Struggle for Statehood”
Sorry, i meant for more info. watch the KSL documentary of “Utah, the Struggle for Statehood” do a google search or you can buy the video from KSL.
http://mazzjazz.com/wwwboard/messages/22196.html complimentwhosewondered