I am very excited to share my interview with Dr. Brian Hales! I was surprised to learn that Brian was recently called as an expert witness in a Canadian polygamy case. Canadian officials wanted to learn more about Mormon fundamentalists in order to decide whether the Canadian law prohibiting polygamy was constitutional. It was ruled that the law was constitutional. It does bring up a few questions. Do you think polygamy ought to be legalized? Brian had an interesting point of view when combining polygamy with gay marriage.
…personally I don’t think that we should allow polygamy either in Canada or the United States, but my reason might be a little surprising to you, because in a country or government that allows same-sex marriage, and again I’m not speaking for or against that, but if we allow same-sex marriage and we allow polygamy, you could have networks of people, hundreds of people all married to each other in a variety of ways.
If the government privileged marriage, in other words if a married man and a married woman, whatever kind of marriage it is, if they have a privilege a single person doesn’t have, then everybody’s going to want to be married in some way. I think it would force the government to basically get out of the marrying business and leave it as a social construct or a religious agreement. But in doing that it would also take away any privilege for marriage which I think could harm the family. So that’s my reasoning for saying I don’t think we should have legal polygamy. I think a society can absorb polygamy on a small scale. It obviously can’t be practiced widely because of the differences in people, male and female, the gendered differences of being born, but I don’t think a society can absorb both of the expansions or marriage at the same time. I mean you can do same-sex marriage, or you can do polygamy. I don’t think it’s good for the family to do both.
I can’t help but think that early Mormon polygamists would have disagreed with Brian. I don’t think early Mormon polygamists would have called polygamy “anti-family.” I also remember an episode from Sister Wives in which Kody Brown and his wives supported gay marriage. What do you think?
In our 3rd episode, we talked about the earliest polygamy rumors in Kirtland. Brian noted that there were some allegations of polygamy as early as 1831, but he discounted those rumors.
The first accusation against the Latter-day Saints, they weren’t called that then, against the Mormons, the Mormonites, that they had embraced some alternate form of marriage, came in 1831. It was in conjunction with the Law of Consecration and it was basically not only do they share everything, they share wives. That was the accusation that came up.
Of course it’s easily refuted. There’s nothing to support that it was even thought of or discussed. So when people say they were talking about polygamy in Kirtland, I would really like to see the data on that, that this was really a response to polygamy because my research shows that there was, with respect to Joseph and Fanny Alger, discussion of adultery and that was the claim that everybody was worried about. I don’t find anybody discussing polygamy during that period.
Dr. Mark Staker noted that the Declaration on Marriage in 1835 prohibited polygamy, and may have been written by Oliver Cowdery. Brian didn’t seem to think that polygamy was an issue, despite its mention in the Declaration on Marriage.
They had published we think most of the book up to section 101, which is the Article on Marriage and that they’re having piles of all these papers around the printing office. So we think, or at least I think and I think Michael [Marquardt] agrees that the driver at that point was really that they just wanted to get official approval so that they could finish publishing the Doctrine & Covenants and so I don’t think that they were trying to do something backhanded with Joseph.
When Joseph came back there’s no evidence that he really disapproved of what had happened. In fact he quotes or refers to the Article on Marriage two or three times later when he is performing marriages. He said this declares our church’s belief which they had to have in writing in order for the elders of the church to be authorized by the state to perform state recognized marriages, so there were a number of things….
GT interrupts: So whether Oliver may have authored it or not, it didn’t seem like it bothered Joseph at all and he was fine with it. Is that safe to say?
Brian: I believe so. I’d have to refresh my memory, but what we do know is he could have had it rescinded but he also quoted it as authoritative and Michael Marquardt pointed this out to me I think he’s even published that somewhere that Joseph did consider it after the fact to be the official declaration of the church at that time.
But the real question I had dealt with possible discrepancies between D&C 132 and JST Genesis. The heading for D&C 132 says parts of the polygamy revelation may have been received as early as 1831 while Joseph was translating the Bible. D&C 132 says God commanded Abraham to take a polygamist wife Hagar. However, if it’s true that Joseph was retransling the bible to look for polygamy, doesn’t it seem strange that Joseph left the Bible story unchanged? The biblical account says Sarah was the driver of the marriage to Hagar, rather than God? How does Brian explain that discrepancy?
Brian: So for me to see the JST Genesis and that it doesn’t necessarily say what comes in 1843 doesn’t surprise me because of the line upon line, precept upon precept process.
Does it bother you that the biblical account doesn’t seem to agree with D&C 132? When do you think polygamy first started in Kirtland?
Next week, we’ll talk about Joseph’s first plural marriage to Fanny Alger. Don’t forget to Subscribe: iTunes | Android
Wheat & Tares 
I have to agree with Dr. Hales that government sanctions of polygamy could cause serious problems. Take social security benefits, for example. Married persons are entitled to spousal benefits. According to ssa.gov, “If your benefits as a spouse are higher than your own retirement benefits, you will get a combination of benefits equaling the higher spouse benefit.” So basically each person in a marriage will receive the benefits of the spouse with higher benefits. If we have large polygamous marriages with many people who are all married to each other and who can each receive benefits up to the amount of the spouse with the highest benefits, then we’re going to have tons of people receiving way more out of the social security system than they put in. It will essentially collapse the whole system. The only solutions would be to get rid of spousal benefits thus punishing people who decided to stay home with their children instead of working for pay, or get rid of the whole social security system. I think this is an example of what Dr. Hales is saying. You either keep polygamy illegal or all government benefits for married persons will likely have to go. That will mostly harm women, especially women who stay home with their children since they are likely getting the most benefit from government marriage laws.
“Next week, we’ll talk about Joseph’s first plural marriage to Fanny Alger. ”
Interesting. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen infidelity characterized that way.
I think EBK is making a different argument than Hales made. It’s interesting to hear about the government side of things, but Hales referenced “family”, not “government” that would be harmed. If we look at Kody Brown’s family, there is 1 stay-at-home mom, and the other 3 wives work: Meri, Robyn, and the other (besides Kody.) Since 3 aren’t legally married, they get their own social security checks anyway–not sure what Christine gets–she is the stay-at-home mom and not legally married to Kody. (I hope I have the names right.)
When I look at Kody’s family, the kids seem well-adjusted, so I’m not seeing the harm, other than societal discrimination, which I would argue is because of social norms, not polygamy problems. On the other hand, I do think that FLDS polygamy is a harm to children and families, with Warren Jeffs divorcing people for stupid reasons. I think FLDS polygamy is harmful to families, and I don’t think FLDS follows the Brigham Young model as well as Kody (the AUB model.) I’m not sure I buy the argument that polygamy harms families per se–government benefits are a separate issue, and it seems that the Brown family has that worked out fairly well.
GBSmith, that will be the big debate: was it adultery, or a legit marriage? Stay tuned! I think there is a case to be made on both sides!
Respect for Brian’s research, but seems mighty inconsistent of a stance to take.
MH,
Maybe I misread Hales, but this quote makes me think he and I are making the same argument:
“If the government privileged marriage, in other words if a married man and a married woman, whatever kind of marriage it is, if they have a privilege a single person doesn’t have, then everybody’s going to want to be married in some way. I think it would force the government to basically get out of the marrying business and leave it as a social construct or a religious agreement. But in doing that it would also take away any privilege for marriage which I think could harm the family.”
The government currently has benefits that mostly protect women who stay home with children. Your claim that the Brown’s have it figured out completely discounts Christine who will receive little to no social security benefits upon retirement. She is 100% at the mercy of Kody with no governmental recourse. I definitely think it could harm the family if our government basically says parents who choose to step out of the workforce for long periods of time are just out of luck and on their own. Now I think you could make the argument that the harm to the family from loss of government benefits would be worth the good that could possibly come from making polygamy legal between consenting adults, but I have a hard time agreeing that there will be no harm to families at all.
I have a hard time seeing the Brown’s as an example of a polygamous family who has it worked out fairly well financially. As far as I can tell Meri’s only job has been direct sales with LuLaRoe which is unlikely to make her enough money that she would even have to contribute to social security so that’s not going to help her. Janelle is currently a real estate agent, which is the type of job that can make a lot of money, but once again it is possible that she isn’t making enough money to accrue social security. She also owned a company that sold food storage supplies but once again, who knows how much of that is going to show up in social security benefits. She did work for the government at one point I believe so she will probably get some social security benefits from that but it’s not going to be very much if she only worked there for a short period of time. Christine has never been employed as far as I can tell. Robyn doesn’t seem to have a job either. At one point they were starting a clothing and jewelry line which has not taken off. Kody and Meri filed for bankruptcy in 2005 and Christine filed for bankruptcy in 2010. It seems that the only way any of them are really making any money is from the show, so that will contribute to their social security benefits, but that doesn’t seem like a good solution for all marriages if the government stops providing spousal benefits.
MH: “When I look at Kody’s family, the kids seem well-adjusted, so I’m not seeing the harm, other than societal discrimination, which I would argue is because of social norms, not polygamy problems.” I have a good friend who was raised in a polygamous household, something you would never suspect to know her. She only confided it after we’d worked together for a long time. Her family was not FLDS. As she put it, her dad just wanted multiple wives. There were about 15 kids total and 4 wives. She had very conflicted feelings about her dad as a result, and she & her siblings had to hide their home life. While you can dismissively argue that it’s just a societal discrimination and due to social norms, her issues were more than that (seeing how her father interacted with her mother and the other women for example), but those societal issues are huge to a kid growing up. They are a very big deal. You can’t ever have your friends come over. You can’t really talk about your family or your home life. You can’t explain why you live with all these other kids your friends might also know. It’s very stressful to these children. A reality show like Sister Wives is heavily scripted and is designed to promote their arrangement in the best light possible because that’s the provocative idea.
Your message to me about this imminent post prompted me to read another interview with Brian Hales. I have found his stances to be mostly morally questionable wishful thinking, apologetics for a practice that demeans women. I still think that, but there was some information about D&C 132 that was interesting. Laura Hales was the one speaking. Here’s the interview transcript: http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/05/24/polygamy-questions-joseph-smith/
“Laura Hales: But what you have to realize is that these revelations that we have printed in our Doctrine & Covenants have been edited. They didn’t come straight from God and were written down, and they were sent to press. In fact, when they were writing the first Book of Commandments, the elders were meeting together, and they were having an argument. They were criticizing Joseph because when he would dictate a revelation, he would do it in the word of God. Joseph said, “Okay. If you can do it better, go ahead and do it.” Nobody would take up the prospect except for one person.
Brian Hales: Yeah, William McClellan.
Laura Hales: William McClellan, yeah. He came back the next day and he said, “Okay. Let’s go with it,” because he realized it’s hard to make up a revelation, so it must have been divine. What happened was that these revelations were collected and had been circulated among the members. Orson Pratt, who happened to be living with Joseph and Emma at the time, described the process that Joseph used in compiling this Book of Commandments as he worked with W. W. Phelps. He said he would take parts of one revelation and combine them with another. He would delete parts of revelations. He would maybe not even publish a revelation and instead put it in his history. D&C 132 never went through this editing process at all. It was tucked away, and before it could be added to the next edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, unfortunately, the prophet was martyred. It actually was kept secret until 1852 when Brigham Young and the other apostles decided that they needed to make the practice of polygamy known because it was no longer a secret. It was probably the worst kept secret in the Utah territories and even starting to be in the United States.
So at a conference, they released the revelation. They told about how it had been restored, and it became the new practice in the church. The new marriage standard. It actually didn’t go into the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876, unedited. Since that time, it hasn’t been edited. So, the things in it that bother people, like polygamy, which we don’t practice anymore in an earthly sense, and the confusing parts, having to do with Joseph and Emma’s personality, and the very harsh language used in that. I once did a study, and I compared all of the revelations that Joseph dictated for the Doctrine and Covenants. I looked for the word “destroy” and by far, out of the whole book, the majority are in that section. It’s very uncomfortable to read that harsh language directed at Emma, so that’s why it’s unpopular. Why no prophet since has wanted to edit it, I don’t know why, but I think it would take a lot of confidence to say, “Hey, I need to edit Joseph’s words when I didn’t get the revelation.” So that’s my kind of take on it.”
Justifications that to me are WHOLLY inadequate to the point of being damning of those who use them:
– “Prophets aren’t perfect.” Yeah, we get that. But adultery and lying to your wife about entering additional marriages isn’t quite the same as being grouchy when your blood sugar is low.
– Law of Sarah. This is the most repugnant defense of polygamy imaginable, that a woman can consent to it or not, but she doesn’t get a veto. Basically, this is saying that women are bound by monogamous marital fidelity but men are not. If marriage vows are not about monogamous marital fidelity, then what are they for?
– Line upon line defense. You quote this in your post, where BH says that Sarah giving her handmaid to Abraham is somehow leading up to or a less evolved version of polygamy as described in D&C 132 where women have no say (or if they say no they are damned) and men can do whatever they want. How is that progressive? How is that superior? How is that morally right?
The only justification that I find at all comforting is the defenses of women who participated in it; but here too there are so many contrary stories of those women who found it unlivable and horrible, and we also have the Stockholm Syndrome effect of women defending something negative that they lived through.
Loved your comments, Angela, and have been enjoying the Gospel Tangents podcast as well.
Bingo, Angela. I read that rather weasely and hand-wavy interview with the Hales and had a similar reaction. I always get the feeling when listening to or reading their justifications that although their facts are correct and well-researched, their interpretations are just a few clicks off from convincing.
EBK, “The government currently has benefits that mostly protect women who stay home with children. Your claim that the Brown’s have it figured out completely discounts Christine who will receive little to no social security benefits upon retirement.”
Maybe you’re on to something here, but I think it’s important to consider gay marriage in light of this. Brian’s case is that BOTH gay marriage and polygamy would be bad for society. I supposed a gay couple gets the same government benefits that a hetero couple does. But does that destroy the family? I know the church tries to say “yes”, but I don’t see the evidence of that. Can you honestly say these gay dads are bad for these children?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9QoK8L1YWo
So I think that the idea of gay parents=bad is a wrong stereotype.
The issue of government for poly women is a tough one. The reason why the government began licensing marriages was to quash Mormon polygamy as mentioned in my post from Kathryn Daines, who talked about the history of marriage. See https://mormonheretic.org/2009/11/01/daynes-history-of-marriage-part-2/
I’m not denying that the government gets involved in marriage, but my real question is whether it is bad for families. Brigham Young certainly didn’t think polygamy was bad for families, and got around efforts to stamp it out, even when government Welfare didn’t exist until the 1930s. As for Christine, there’s an episode in which Kody Brown said they were socialistic in their polygamy, so I don’t see her lack of social security as a problem. Kody and his wives have always shared income with her, even if she may not be eligible for government welfare. I suppose there are abuses in the FLDS system, but the AUB system seems to work better.
****I am not advocating for legalization of polygamy.***** I am simply questioning the assumptions of Brian Hales that the combination of polygamy and gay marriage is “bad for families.” I think there are some bad assumptions in that argument.
Ted Bundy is known to have killed dozens of young women in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Florida where he was executed. (Over a hundred potential victims but many not easily provable). His early, nearly irrefutable victims were killed when he was in college in Seattle. Many of his victims resemble in appearance a college girlfriend who rejected him. Projected anger towards her is one motive often cited.
When Ted Bundy was about 15 years old, a 12 year old girl, who was a friend and playmate living in his neighborhood, disappeared without a trace. Her remains have never been discovered and no direct evidence links Bundy to her disappearance. In spite of the lack of evidence she is often cited as the earliest potential victim.
Do you seriously disbelieve, knowing what happened later, that Ted Bundy did not kill this 12 year old girl? Granted it is not provable in court, but seriously disbelieve it? I would call it guilt by association and it is not useful in court, but every mother knows it is highly useful in disciplining children.
***
Many arguments for Joseph Smith and early polygamy are on similar grounds. We are dealing with purposeful secrecy, imperfect history and different levels of certainty. Some later marriages are quite certain and others less so and even others closer to hunches. Defenders of Joseph Smith want to only include the most certain relationships and dismiss entirely the rest and then try and white wash from there. But since polygamy was secret, I think it makes more sense to assume Joseph Smith was successful in hiding many of his plural marriages from history. It makes more sense to presume we only have a part of the story and there are several other plural wives or affairs lost to history. That is the usual pattern for serial sexual cheaters and for many serial killers.
My guess is that it was at about the time of the First Vision when Joseph Smith had his first disturbing sexual relationship; probably with a neighbor girl. First on my list of possibilities was fellow seer Sally Chase who was somewhat older than him. Her brother, Willard Chase was furious with Joseph Smith for the rest of his life and was a pillar among his enemies. Something happened. Looking at the later activities of Joseph Smith it makes sense, it doesn’t constitute proof, I admit. But I find it difficult to seriously believe only innocent mutual peepstoning transpired between these two youth while out in the woods at night looking for treasure. Especially in light of all the subsequent plural marriages.
The more the defenders drag their feet, the worse it becomes. The story of the story grows. Even now not only must we deal with what the defenders are now forced to concede, but we must deal with the fact of all the times and ways we lied about it for over a century. When I was young, the defenders adamantly claimed Fanny Algiers affair was entirely contrived and nothing happened, now she is a “wife.” Is there no stable ground from which we will not eventually be forced to retreat? This issue will never rest until we admit polygamy was a terrible, evil practice; the extent of which we will never know, and preemptively concede to any future accusations with even a scrap of evidence, and try to move forward from there. It is a bitter pill to swallow and it grows larger but it is going to be forced down our throats eventually.
***
Footnote: Who has the burden of proof? When outrageous claims are made, then convincing evidence is needed. My claim is tactically outrageous to this audience and my evidence is weak. But the claim that God commanded polygamy among only a handful of top leaders of a small radical sect on the 19th century American frontier is far more outrageous in the general population and without any proof what-so-ever. Do we play by rules fair to both sides? Or do we require strong evidence for claims against Joseph Smith and allow any weak evidence to stand supporting him? Because there is no strong evidence that this practice of polygamy is of God! Contrary to Mormon interpretations, most see the Bible as pointing out the flaws of polygamy, not supporting it as a God approved institution. That we are even having this discussion is allowing for weak evidence to be permitted.
Dr. Hale’s biased defenses of polygamy appear to me to be very much like the theories about Ted Bundy projecting anger from a failed relationship. Well-reasoned, comforting, myopic and ultimately inadequate.
MH,
“Maybe you’re on to something here, but I think it’s important to consider gay marriage in light of this. Brian’s case is that BOTH gay marriage and polygamy would be bad for society. I supposed a gay couple gets the same government benefits that a hetero couple does. But does that destroy the family? I know the church tries to say “yes”, but I don’t see the evidence of that. Can you honestly say these gay dads are bad for these children?”
No. I absolutely do not think that gay marriage is bad for children. I have to admit I have little knowledge of Brian Hales larger writings. My comments were based on the quotes from this article alone. I don’t think gay marriage between two people presents any more difficulty in applying government benefits than heterosexual marriage between two people does. I do think if the U.S. government is going to make polygamous marriage legal there is definitely going to be some problems with the current way government marriage benefits are defined and redefining them is likely going to hurt many families. I read the first quote in the article to mean that the combination of gay marriage and polygamous marriage was the issue (not gay marriage alone) since there is no limit to the number of people who can be intermarried to each other and receive benefits from those marriages. My personal opinion is that the number of people involved in a marriage is what presents a problem regarding government benefits, not the sex or gender of those people.
Angela,
I’m not here to defend polygamy; I think the abuses in FLDS are well-known. I’m not familiar with the AUB, and other “independent” polygamists. I know that Anne Wilde has stated that if people could live polygamy openly, it would cause a lot of the abuses to go away. Sunshine is the best policy. I also think that even when polygamy was openly lived in Utah (BY’s day or even in Kody Brown’s case), it is hard to live. Your experiences learning about polygamy from a friend are well-taken. I do think that in today’s Supreme Court, it would be hard to uphold the constitutionality of the polygamy ban though, and perhaps many of the abuses would be eliminated.
Mike, I’ve never heard of a sex relationship as the hypothetical one you’ve proposed. I’m not sure that’s good history to introduce such an outlandish theory.
We didn’t talk about the Law of Sarah, but I’m going to have to see if I can reschedule a conversation on that point. I’m not a fan of that so-called “law” either. I agree with you on this.
Sorry for the incomplete quote. I actually asked Brian about Hagar 3 times, and this was the most succinct answer. I didn’t mean to imply that ” Sarah giving her handmaid to Abraham is somehow leading up to or a less evolved version of polygamy as described in D&C 132.” To me the Genesis account and D&C 132 clearly conflict. D&C 132:34 “God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.”
Yet when you read Genesis 16: 1-2
God had nothing to do with chapter 16:1-2; this was Sarah’s idea. God did not command Abraham to take Hagar, Sarai did. Now in my thinking, if Joseph wanted to fix this problem, the JST could have simply added “God commanded Abram” in verse 1, but the JST leaves the story unchanged. I asked Brian why JST doesn’t add this to the Genesis account to make it corroborate with D&C 132, and Brian says 3 things.
1 – “The Bible does not teach anything about whether polygamy is good or bad. All we know is that Abraham practiced it and Abraham was a friend of God. We can get that from scriptures, so Joseph may have just gone with his question about is this a valid practice?”
(Yet D&C 132 seems to indicate that polygamy is REQUIRED. The bible makes no such claim.)
2 – “The other thing is that in the Bible there’s nobody commanded to practice polygamy ever, but we have in section 132 that Abraham was commanded by God to marry Hagar. So I don’t think Joseph knew any of this in 1831.”
I took away that Joseph didn’t really know the Abraham/Hagar story very well in 1831. In the next 12 years, of course he learned that story better, but he never changed the JST to say God commanded Abraham to take Hagar. To me this is a huge discrepancy. Brian’s response was that Joseph didn’t get the entire 132 revelation in 1831, but received it piecemeal, line upon line. Brian isn’t fazed that 132 doesn’t line up with Genesis 16 because Joseph was still learning things about polygamy, so the “line upon line” idea is that Joseph learned more about polygamy over the next decade, not that Abraham had a less enlightened form of polygamy than Joseph. Sorry for the confusion there.
The complicating factor in evaluating Brighamite polygamy is that there was a major incentive to put on a happy face. Openly complaining was tantamount to betraying the church. In spite of that, among my family’s history, attitudes toward polygamy ran the gamut. The negative experiences outnumber the positive, though. I do not see it as a healthy environment for most women and children (as Jacob 2 points out). I admit there are likely a few exceptions.
I get why the church pushes the Alger relationship as an early plural marriage rather than an affair. If Joseph was a proven adulterer, it puts into question his later motives for polygamy. I’m surprised that Brian Hales is fighting that interpretation.
Sorry, here”s the 3rd thing. Maybe I should have had for a separate post, regarding the JST that Brian said. I’m curious how others view the JST.
Two questions come from that quote: 1) Should the JST be considered scripture?
2) Is this really the idea that 132 is an expanded version of JST Genesis? Is the story more of a midrash, and we should accept 132 as more authoritative regarding Hagar? The problem arises that if JST isn’t scripture and D&C 132 is scripture, then you’ve got a contradiction. If Joseph is expanding the Genesis account in a JST way that’s not really scriptural, but more of a Jewish Midrash, should we really believe D&C 132:34 “God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.”? It still seems contradictory to me.
Let me also add that I find it interesting to see that Kody Brown supports both legalization of gay marriage and polygamy. Brown may have a dog in the fight, but I don’t think he sees it as dire as “bad for the family” as Hales does. And given the history of marriage, I don’t see a real reason for the government to be regulating marriage, except for ensuring that marriage (gay, hetero, or poly) only happen for consenting adults. I’m not in favor of child brides, but if consenting adults want to marry, I’m not sure the harm in that to the family. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal. Do we view the legalization of them as anti-family? I think we teach people correct principles and give them free agency.
Rick: I agree that we have historically looked at the JST all wrong, and this isn’t the first time I’ve seen that. It’s in some ways more of a commentary than a “re-translation,” as we’ve usually characterized it. It isn’t complete, either, but based on his understanding of things at a given time, and he didn’t complete the work. It’s like a midrash or even pseudepigraphy. As for D&C 132 being an expanded view of JST Genesis? No, I don’t think so at all. If Hales is saying that (which isn’t how I read it), then I think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The contradiction disappears with this changed view of what the JST is because D&C 132 would be more authoritative due to being more recent, but the quote I shared from Laura Hales (with Brian there chiming in) indicates (at least how I interpret it) that D&C 132 was more of a private fight between JS & Emma, more personal than most revelations in the D&C, much harsher, and that it was ONLY used because BY wanted to bolster a defense of polygamy much later–and it was included without ever going through the normal process of editing and merging with other revelations that early additions to the D&C went through (but 132 couldn’t go through due to the martyrdom). So basically, the one bright spot in all this is saying that both the JST and D&C 132 are likely flawed, incomplete, and not 100% written from God’s pen using divine ink.
I find it disturbing that Brian H. doesn’t seem to do much work to explain why he thinks gay marriage is anti-family; does he really think it’s just a no-brainer that requires no explanation? On the contrary, gay marriage remedies a few things that are anti-family:
1) kids left to rot in the foster system who couldn’t find placement with loving families – although this predated gay marriage, I hasten to add. If the church really objected to gay people raising kids, they should have fought against singles adopting. Missing that demonstrates a serious lack of foresight if parenting was the real issue.
2) gay promiscuity. Without gay marriage as a potential, gay relationships have often been more fraught with peril because there’s no stabilizing potential that comes with marriage.
3) closeted mixed orientation marriages. When being gay holds no marital potential, gay people who seek relationship stability may choose to hide their true feelings and marry against their inclination, resulting in eventual broken homes and hearts.
4) gay suicides, undoubtedly worse when young people discover they are gay and have no hope for lifetime partnership through marriage.
Mormon Heretic: “I don’t see a real reason for the government to be regulating marriage, except for ensuring that marriage (gay, hetero, or poly) only happen for consenting adults.” I get what you are saying, but the US at least has long provided economic benefits to marriage. You’re talking about legal reasons (protecting innocents), but economic incentives like tax advantages and dependent credits, etc., have been baked into the US system to motivate people to marry which is considered a stabilizing influence on society. That stability is believed to promote the economy while providing disincentives for anti-social behavior like crime. Now, if you are saying that we’d be just as well off if marriage carried no economic advantage, that might be true or not. I haven’t looked at the stats, but in Australia it’s actually a tax burden rather than a relief to marry, so many people there simply enter common law or domestic partnership arrangements rather than getting married. I don’t know if they are equally stable as the US. Worth looking into I guess.
EBK:
One other factor in the gay marriage, plural marriage consideration. Government and employer entitlements. Who gets them and who pays for them?
If we go to strict no govt payouts any more then I am fine with polygamy. My kids are grown. I can’t afford to retire. My health plan is to die. Fine for me. Businesses would also not be required to give us much of anything either, but they are regulated by the govt. (Minimum wage for example).
But that isn’t gonna happen.So who pays? Where is the limit ? Forty gay guys get married and one has a job and they all want insurance. Warren Jeffs puts all 70 of his legal plural wives on the same insurance plan. Can a bisexual man marry another 4 men and 6 women and can the various spouses pick and choose who to back-marry among this so-called big family? How many of our entitlements are based on the bread-winner husband plus or minus the working wife model? Every one of these benefits in govt and business will be affected and guess who will pay? The govt is already bankrupt.
Add common easy divorce into these complex networks of marriage webs and it becomes a hopeless quagmire. We might need 3 attorneys for every 2 people to keep up with the lawsuits and bickering. The support of free-loaders of every variety will proliferate in the name of plural and/or gay marriage. The idea of “dependent” will have to be eliminated . Every person will function as an independent entity in all entitlement transactions with govt and business. Our children will be left “un-benefitted” and too expensive to support. Won’t affect the family, my ass.
The family will have to pay its own way entirely without support during the time in their life when they are young and can least afford it. People might stop having children and the whole system will collapse when the hopelessly entangled- intermarried and partially divorced generation of free-loaders all age to where the govt can’t squeeze another cent out of them and it will collapse. Like the tower of Babel.
If I had to chose one or the other, gay marriage limited to two people in each marriage makes far more sense than plural marriage. Less chaos. Probably a very slightly lower birth rate and more adults to help pay for the children; health care, education, drug rehab, juvie, etc.
Polygamy is as old as the human race. It has always been a privilege of only those rich enough to support it. Riches acquired most generally from plunder, thievery, and every other form of exploitation. But leave it to the digital generation to prove they are the dumbest generation ever to walk the face of the earth.
“Does it bother you that the biblical account doesn’t seem to agree with D&C 132? ”
No. It bothers me that Doctrine and Covenants 132 doesn’t agree with the Bible.
“I find it disturbing that Brian H. doesn’t seem to do much work to explain why he thinks gay marriage is anti-family; does he really think it’s just a no-brainer that requires no explanation?”
I wish I had expanded on that with Brian, but my purpose was to talk polygamy with him, not gay marriage, so I didn’t pursue the idea. I talked to him for 2 hours anyway, and already had lots to talk about with regards to polygamy (and still didn’t ask him everything!) I’m not sure what Brian Hales thinks with regards to gay marriage. What I got from the conversation that a society can accept gay marriage, or it can accept polygamy, but not both. It’s the combination that is anti-family. I’ll see if I can get him to join the conversation, because I don’t want to mischaracterize him, but that was my takeaway.
There’s a lot of discussion here about polygamy among consenting adults, and I’m not convinced that’s even possible. To reiterate Angela’s point, “Basically, this is saying that women are bound by monogamous marital fidelity but men are not.” I’m not sure all parties to a polygamous marriage *can* consent because there’s always an imbalance of power (which introduces an element of coercion). When we say polygamy we usually mean polygyny, which by definition regulates the sexuality of the women while not doing the same for the men, creating a gendered power imbalance.
This is further complicated by the problem of the backup family. To illustrate, several years ago some damning information about my father came rather suddenly to light. In processing these events with my siblings, we noticed that the married brothers were less impacted by the dissolution of our childhood home than the single siblings. They had another family now with their own wife and children, so their primary base of support had shifted. Similarly, when times are tough for a man and woman in a polygynous marriage, he has the option of retreating to his other marriage relationships and emotionally divesting from the one experiencing problems. Even if he doesn’t intentionally do that, the mere fact that he’s juggling multiple marital connections means that the woman always carries more of the load of each relationship than the man does for any one of them. So while the ‘Law’ of Sarah is the most extreme iteration of female powerlessness in polygyny, it’s undercurrent is ever present in even the most outwardly functional polygynous families.
Tangential question: Has any LDS historian actually dealt with the documents and arguments in the RLDS (Community of Christ) history of polygamy by Richard and Pamela Price “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes”.
http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm
summarized here
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-im-abandoning-polygamy.html
?
We (and the histories I have read) seem to begin from the assumption that the polygamy acknowledged by the Utah Church in 1852 and first appearing, I think, in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876 began with Joseph Smith. The Prices argue that polygamy began with a different religious sect and continued among some Mormons after some of those polygamists became Mormons and that it grew under the sponsorship of John C. Bennett and others who falsely attributed it to Joseph Smith. Maybe Rick will want to ask Brian if in his work, he actually reviewed and considered the documents the Prices rely on or their arguments about the veracity of the women who claimed to have been polygamously married to Joseph Smith during his lifetime.
I appreciate the lively discussion and also am grateful to Rick for allowing me to be interviewed.
Let me add a few thoughts:
I worry I’m being misrepresented on several topics in this string. Please let’s not put words or ideas in my mouth.
I am against omnigamy or network marriage, which is an unavoidable consequence of approving both same-sex marriage and polygamy.
I believe it would make marriage so complex that the government would eventually stop privileging it, which would be bad for the family. Hence, I might support one, but not both.
People who want to disagree with me on any point dealing with polygamy are welcome to do so, but rather than just criticize, I would encourage them to bring evidences to support their alternate views.
Polygamy on earth is unfair to women. Laura and I never try to defend it because in mortality, it is essentially indefensible.
We know nothing about the dynamics of eternal plural marriage. Speculating and harboring fears would be useless.
If someone can’t believe God would send an angel to command polygamy, then they will struggle with Joseph Smith’s teachings and practices of plural marriage. Faith is required because many things associated with it are unrevealed and still unclear.
None of Joseph Smith’s plural wives ever wrote anything negative concerning him. These women knew the details and while seven left the Church, even they did not later criticize him.
Laura and I are convinced that perhaps the only aspect of Nauvoo plural marriage that can strengthen testimony is to learn of the faith of participants, to understand their convictions and reasons for believing in Joseph Smith was a Prophet.
Kody Brown and the FLDS are not practicing authorized polygamy. Without authorization, there is no marriage (see D&C 132:7, 18, 19). They feign living a higher law, but it is a counterfeit and will only bring condemnation.
I’ll comment on Fanny Alger after the next installment. 🙂
Thanks,
Brian Hales
Through earnest study over many decades regarding this form of marriage I’ve never seen anything but overall woe come from it—Fathers who didnt know their children very well at all. Who failed to adequately provide the necessities of life quite often, let alone the yearnings for nurturing and bonding. Husbands who didn’t believe romantic love to be of God. Wives who couldn’t bear to live with other wives, nor treat other wives’ children equitably. Wives who were incredibly lonely. Wives who lived in poverty. Young women married to old men and widowed young in life. Wives having to endure watching husbands flirt with and cuddle up to the newest conquest while there was never any newness of love and devotion forthcoming for them. Needed funds taken from an existing family to court and secure a new wife and then her children. I’ve never read of a single case of plural marriage bringing forth as much goodness, love, devotion, oneness, happiness, and joy as monogamous marriage does. Such will always be the case, for if a man (or wife) has more than one wife (or husband) the time in which he (she) can share love, support, devotion, experiences and intimacies is divided, robbing the first wife (husband) forevermore. The more he marries the less of him she has. She has only a part-time husband and father at best. How can this strengthen marriage and family??
I think polygamy (polygyny, polyandry, polywhatever) wouldn’t be that hard to implement, nor would it be a detriment to the family. For implementation, it’d just be a higher bar to clear than two person marriage is. For insurance, it’d just meant the inclusion of “limit 1 spouse” to the coverage. For anything else you’d just have to get the details in writing, as you would any other union of entities. Divorce would be easier, as everything was detailed in writing to begin with. The law could even make it simpler by allowing only 2 legal guardians/parents per child.
As for it damaging “the family” – it’s survived far more. Objections like this one and “it’ll make divorce too messy” are simply poor excuses, imagining circumstances that rarely, if ever exist. We’ve been through the same objections on gay marriage, no fault divorce, and every other change to marriage we’ve had in the past. There are so many imaginations of what “it must be like”, taking stories we’ve heard and concluding that it can’t be good for anyone. Any appearances of happiness and functionality must be a sham.
Let those who are hiding come out of the shadows. Make laws to help protect the innocent, but let adults make decisions for their own relationships, with the strength and security of the State sanction behind it.
Apologies for the last 3 comments getting posted so slowly. I’m not sure why our spam filter seems to be over-active.
There may be some questions regarding “omnigamy,” which is not polygamy or same-sex marriage, but the two combined. Here’s something a wrote a few years ago that discusses this: http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/opinion/58374281-82/marriage-polygamy-hales-legal.html.csp
Brian Hales: Thank you for chiming in. It is very helpful to have your views directly represented. It’s hard to ascertain this piecemeal from transcripts (and I confess to being a very dilatory podcast-listener; I’d rather watch paint dry for the most part although I do enjoy Blair Hodges’ MI Podcast as the one exception).
“Polygamy on earth is unfair to women. Laura and I never try to defend it because in mortality, it is essentially indefensible.” Thank you for this clarification. While I completely agree with this statement, I think I can see where we disconnect, and I’ll elaborate.
“We know nothing about the dynamics of eternal plural marriage. Speculating and harboring fears would be useless.” There’s a tendency to hand-wave away ‘celestial kingdom stuff’ as if we will all be blessed with some superior understanding or as I call it ‘the celestial lobotomy.’ To me, this is a lazy apologetic approach (no personal offense intended–I’m just explaining how I view it), but it’s certainly mainstream in the church whenever a thorny topic arises. Every Gospel Doctrine class employs this technique. On the one hand, sure, we don’t know what the afterlife is going to feel like, but on the other hand, if we are supposed to strive for something, we can’t say that it’s so incomprehensible (“we know nothing”) that it’s not worth thinking about. The point of heaven is to motivate us to achieve it, right? If it’s undesirable, why not go for the terrestrial kingdom? Because from where I sit, that’s looking pretty sweet if we’ve got an eternity of what’s hinted at in the temple for women. We could just as easily say “the celestial kingdom is going to be a lake of fire and brimstone, endless torment, BUT you’ll actually LIKE IT.” We often say that the reason for families being eternal is because they are so great on earth that we want that to continue. Well, the same logic is what is damning about celestial polygyny. If the system is terrible on earth, why would we want it to continue in the eternities?
“If someone can’t believe God would send an angel to command polygamy, then they will struggle with Joseph Smith’s teachings and practices of plural marriage. Faith is required because many things associated with it are unrevealed and still unclear.” Count me in on this one. I am very skeptical about the angel with a drawn sword story. It sounds a whole lot like high school boys trying to convince their girlfriends that not having sex is literally going to kill them. Color me skeptical. I’m also pretty skeptical about D&C 132 specifically because of the harsh language pointed at Emma that seems coercive and tantamount to spousal verbal abuse–as Laura pointed out in her comments. Faith is only required if polygamy really was divinely sanctioned. If not, then faith–in polygamy–is not required. One can still have faith that on other points JS was divinely inspired. One can still have a testimony, just not of that untrue principle. Forcing church members to tie these together is a big ask–too big. Now, I realize that the church has long tried to avoid the conflict by not discussing polygamy, but it’s not as easy in 2017 to avoid this topic as it once was. My own opinion (FWIW which is not much) is that the church needs to clearly stake out a way for individuals to reject polygamy’s divine origin while accepting other aspects of the restoration. I think there’s a bit of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” on this one because I can confidently state that most of the RS isn’t buying that polygamy is or ever was God’s will nor that it will be the norm in the celestial kingdom. They are exercising their faith by not rejecting the church outright for its unwillingness to stand by living women more than it stands by dead leaders and forebears, an act (or inaction) that seems consistent with other aspects of how women are viewed.
“None of Joseph Smith’s plural wives ever wrote anything negative concerning him. These women knew the details and while seven left the Church, even they did not later criticize him.” I tend to agree that the testimony of those who left the church is most valuable in this regard (likewise Oliver Cowdery’s testimony of the BOM bears more weight). However, that only exonerates JS as a gentleman in the process. His polygamy was certainly practiced with restrictions that subsequent practitioners didn’t have. Thanks for this, though.
“Laura and I are convinced that perhaps the only aspect of Nauvoo plural marriage that can strengthen testimony is to learn of the faith of participants, to understand their convictions and reasons for believing in Joseph Smith was a Prophet.” That is certainly the only bright spot. Any port in a storm.
“Kody Brown and the FLDS are not practicing authorized polygamy. Without authorization, there is no marriage (see D&C 132:7, 18, 19). They feign living a higher law, but it is a counterfeit and will only bring condemnation.” Personally, I agree, and as I added above, it’s a reality show. It’s heavily scripted. It has an agenda. Although you could say the same of the restoration and the D&C. 😉
“I’ll comment on Fanny Alger after the next installment. 🙂” I really do look forward to this. *grabs popcorn*
Hi Angela,
I appreciate the comments. I hate to keep responding with links to my previous writings, but here’s one dealing with the angel of the sword you may have already seen: “Encouraging Joseph Smith to Practice Plural Marriage:The Accounts of the Angel with a Drawn Sword,” Mormon Historical Studies vol. 11, no. 2, Fall 2010, 23-39 at http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf
The issue about celestial marriage is where I may have to disagree. We are told that exalted beings will “inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths” and their marriages “shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them” (D&C 132:19-20).
This general description says nothing about marital relationship in the realm. To say we know nothing about marriage dynamics in eternity is not a cop out. For us to speculate regarding how eternal marriage or eternal plural marriage might be is a fruitless and hopeless endeavor. I think some voices, like Carol Lynn Pearson recently, have exploited fears of what might be and ignored God’s promises of “eternal happiness” (Alma 3:26) and a fulness of joy (D&C 93:33). I wrote a review of CLP’s book, THE GHOST OF ETERNAL POLYGAMY. See http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/opportunity-lost/#more-9824.
Thanks again for the post.
Brian
Brian Hales: “I am against omnigamy or network marriage, which is an unavoidable consequence of approving both same-sex marriage and polygamy. I believe it would make marriage so complex that the government would eventually stop privileging it, which would be bad for the family. Hence, I might support one, but not both.” This helps to clarify. The comment from the post seems taken out of context (or at least missing elaboration). I’m also against network marriage and polygamy (against giving them the preferential treatment afforded monogamous marriage).
Same sex marriage is IMO parallel to heterosexual marriage and not fraught with peril in providing it equal privileged status. The economic incentives that apply to heterosexual marriage are easy enough to apply to any two people, regardless their sex. It’s the addition of multiple spouses that creates an economic problem, and as far as I can see, that’s the only reason this is an issue for governmental involvement: extending benefits to spouses (health, tax, etc.). I still think the church missed the boat on this whole thing when they didn’t oppose singles adopting back in the 1990s. That was the gateway to same sex marriage. The church’s reasons for opposing same sex marriage are mostly about children having two parents of different sexes, an argument that IMO is based on gender essentialism and reductivist thinking that doesn’t bear scrutiny, but this argument should have applied equally to singles adopting which the church didn’t oppose. Once singles could adopt, the horse was out of the barn.
Ditto Angela’s comment. I have a theological problem with the idea that polygyny which so utterly repulses me now will be attractive or even acceptable to my post mortal self. In Alma 41 we learn the following about the resurrection:
“12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
“13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.”
To raise my soul to a state of polygyny would be putting it “in a state opposite to it’s nature.” I don’t believe that God commanded Joseph or any of his successors to practice polygamy, and it’s better that I don’t. I have zero interest in a God who would value me so little. If I believed God had commanded Joseph to marry additional women then I would have to reject all of it. If I believe Joseph (and Brigham, etc) got this one wrong then I can keep working and sorting through to find the parts that are divine.
Has any LDS historian actually engaged the documents and arguments relied upon by the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS church) to show that Joseph Smith fought polygamy, never authorized it, and that it became part of the Mormon church as a result of others’ actions, including the conversion of polygamous Cochranites and John C. Bennett? or are such arguments/histories simply written off as apologetic and therefore needing no serious engagement while LDS historians/apologists defend polygamy because they don’t want to conclude that various Utah women of Brigham Young’s era dissembled about alleged polygamous marriages to Joseph? There is, after all, no way to get away from the lying about polygamy — either those women and Bennett and others lied or Joseph and others lied when they denied practicing polygamy.
If there is a serious LDS historical/analytical engagement of the RLDS story out there, I would like to know where to find it. In the meantime, whatever JS did or didn’t with respect to polygamy, I am unable to believe the story of the angel with drawn sword or the “law of Sarah” or the former insistence that no one gets exalted in the celestial kingdom without entering into a polygamous marriage, etc. Though I don’t expect infallibility or perfection of prophets, if the RLDS story were correct, it may be easier to “keep working and sorting through to find the parts that are divine.”
Brian Hales: You refer to a description of exaltation that is a description of what MEN have to look forward to, not women. “We are told that exalted beings will “inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths” and their marriages “shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. ” SEEDS = MEN. “Then shall they be gods,” MEN, it doesn’t say gods & goddesses and goddess isn’t a term used by the church “because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” I’d love to believe that this description of exaltation applies to both sexes, but that would be wishful thinking on my part. It’s certainly not consistent with what the endowment says to women (which differs from what it says to men). There is precious little that clarifies what women have to look forward to, and given our polygamous past and our unwillingness to disavow it, that seems suspiciously like we don’t want to admit the truth of the limited and unequal potential of women in our theology. I haven’t read CLP’s book, but IMO she merely gives voice to the unstated angst most women in the church feel on this topic. Ignoring it is the best we can do to assuage that angst. It’s not going away. It doesn’t seem to be a priority, particularly since several of the apostles are polygamously sealed whereas living women are barred from that. We can’t just say “It will all work out in the end.” Their actions confirm the fear that it only goes one way, the way with women being unequal and subordinate to our husbands.
I know it’s common practice to assume that things apply to women when only men are mentioned, but in this case, it’s unwarranted because the temple treats the two sexes differently. We can either assume that this inconsistency is because the temple is wrong, or we can admit that women are in fact not included in these blessings.
I don’t intend to sound argumentative, so please take this in the spirit intended. I really appreciate your willingness to listen and engage. Believe me, it’s more than I would have hoped for from someone in your position. I’m sure it’s frustrating for you. I do engage in a good deal of ignoring and wishful thinking to make these things bearable. It is difficult to realize that these concerns aren’t taken seriously enough to address.
After listening to the podcasts, I think there needs to be a clarification in the OP. Although Hales argues that Joseph’s relationship with Alger was more often framed in accusations as adultery, he *does* believe it was an early plural marriage (performed late 1835 or early 1836). I take it that it would’ve been performed after the August 1835 Article on Marriage.
As for postmortal polygamy, you can’t discount what past leaders of the church (like Orson Pratt) have said about the issue. Any past statements on Heavenly Mother necessarily foreshadow what women have to look forward to, and early understandings of her were framed in context of polygamy. Our current practice of barring living women from being sealed to more than one man is proof that leaders still view polyandry as an inappropriate eternal expectation, while polygamy is perfectly appropriate as a postmortal option. Even the Revelations in Context series and current D&C manual use postmortal relationships to justify polygamy – the only way to allow a man to live with his two wives for eternity (Hyrum Smith in one, Dallin H. Oaks in the other).
Brian, thanks for participating! Sorry the first comment got stuck, but the spam filter seems to be working better today.
JR, Brian has discussed the old RLDS position, and we touch on that in a future interview. I will also add that I had a conversation with a member of the First Presidency of the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are a break-off of the RLDS Church, officially established circa 2000, and have a descendant of Joseph Smith as their prophet (Fred Larson.) I was surprised how resistant Jim Vun Cannon was to the idea that Joseph practiced polygamy, and encouraged him to listen to my interviews with Brian Hales. In short, the old RLDS position (and position of Rock Waterman and the Remnant Church) is that most of the affidavits date from decades later and are unreliable. In my conversation with Vun Cannon, I noted that the Expositor was contemporary and many of the RLDS members were part of the Expositor group. I didn’t think Vun Cannon had a good response, but I will let you all be the judge when I release that interview. (I will also add that the notes on Fanny Alger are contemporary.)
I know Brian just published a piece addressing the Price’s claims on monogamy for Joseph. See http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-monogamist-or-polygamist/
(And Brian, don’t worry about posting links. I personally appreciate them!)
Thanks, Rick. I’ll look forward to the future release of the other interviews.
Let me add one other issue about the Price’s argument that I don’t agree with–this idea that late affidavits are unreliable.
The accusations against Bill Cosby are decades old. Are we to disbelieve them simply because so much time has passed? Are we to disbelieve the women that have accused Trump of sexual assault are unreliable because the accusations are decades old? Are we to disbelieve Bill Clinton’s female accusers because the story is late? Are we to disbelieve Bill O’Reilly’s accusers? Roger Ailes? I’m sorry. I think where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and I personally believe the Cosby, Trump , Clinton, O’Reilly, and Ailes accusers. I find the Price’s defense of monogamy to be wishful thinking.
MaryAnn,
We discuss Fanny Alger quite a bit in the next 2 interviews. Brian stated that the timeline for the beginning of the Fanny Alger relationship is controversial. Some want to claim it is as early as 1831, others after the April 3, 1836 vision of Elijah, although Brian thinks it dates to 1835. I hadn’t thought about it in terms of the timing of the Declaration on Marriage. That would be interesting to hear from Brian on that point.
I can just loudly amen pretty much everything Angela said. But I want to chime in re: this statement from Hales: “I think some voices, like Carol Lynn Pearson recently, have exploited fears of what might be and ignored God’s promises of “eternal happiness” (Alma 3:26) and a fulness of joy (D&C 93:33).”
Take it from one who has suffered this fear for years: Carol Lynn does not exploit our fear. She does us the courtesy of taking us seriously, which quite frankly no male in this church has ever done. You simply cannot wave away this question as if it is not based in logical thought. Angela has already mentioned the temple and the words of part prophets that give this fear a solid foundation. These issues deserve critical engagement, not offhand dismissal.
Thanks for the great remarks Angela, but I must respectfully differ on one point. You wrote “You refer to a description of exaltation that is a description of what MEN have to look forward to, not women” but D&C 132:19–20 refers to a “man” and a “wife” together. Consider this with emphasis:
And again, verily I say unto you, if a MAN marry a WIFE by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto THEM. . . and it shall be said unto THEM–Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths. . . it shall be done unto THEM in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when THEY are out of the world; and THEY shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to THEIR exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon THEIR heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall THEY be gods, because THEY have no end; therefore shall THEY be from everlasting to everlasting, because THEY continue; then shall THEY be above all, because all things are subject unto THEM. Then shall THEY be gods, because THEY have all power, and the angels are subject unto THEM.
No man or woman is exalted alone. These scriptures describe a couple without distinguishing the benefits offers to one or the other.
We don’t know what “continuation of the seeds” actually means. Some say it means women will be delivering spirit children forever—that doesn’t sound like “eternal happiness” or a “fulness of joy to me.” The reality, the truth, the actuality is that we don’t know what it means.
So we can embrace fears of things we do not know, or we can believe God’s promises. I realize the fears are real for many and perhaps we can say it takes extra faith to believe what we know rather than fear what we don’t know.
God admonishes us: “Verily, I say unto you my friends, fear not, let your hearts be comforted; yea, rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks” (D&C 98:1). “Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full” (D&C 101:36).
I don’t mean this to be critical in anyway. I know it can be difficult to assuage fears that enter our hearts, but allowing them to remain can cause us to lose important blessings (see D&C 67:3).
I do not support validating fears of the unknown, especially if they can hurt our faith.
Warmly,
Brian
BH: God admonishes us: “Verily, I say unto you my friends, fear not, let your hearts be comforted; yea, rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks” (D&C 98:1). “Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full” (D&C 101:36).
These are from sections related to the persecutions in Missouri and given for the saints there. Generalizing quotes from the D&C is pretty common but not always accurate or useful. Now back to our regular programing.
I haven’t read the lengthy comments closely, but in the contemporary polygamy context I want to clarify an issue that often gets elided.
Legalization and decriminalization are two entirely different things. I don’t think anyone is seriously anglng for the legalization of polygamy, or if they are they’re living in a fantasy world. That ain’t gonna happen. Decriminalization is different and largely targets Utah’s ridiculous cohabitation law. I support decriminalization. Law enforcement should focus on substantive crimes (underage marriages, abuse, various forms of fraud, etc.)
Brian: “No man or woman is exalted alone. These scriptures describe a couple without distinguishing the benefits offers to one or the other.” Yes, we are often told that no man or woman is exalted alone, both in scripture, and in the temple. The scripture you cite differs, though, in how blessings are described in the temple. There is an apparent mismatch in the language used to describe exaltation for men & women. I’d love to see what a historian like you would do with that disconnect. Since both D&C 132 and the temple endowment were mostly institutionalized by BY (after being originated by JS), it opens interesting questions.
“I do not support validating fears of the unknown, especially if they can hurt our faith.” It would be great if this kind of thinking were applied to the temple, in the parts that differ between the sexes. I have to assume that those who are in a position to improve these things either don’t care how women perceive things or honestly believe that these differences that place women eternally below men are desirable. Laura pointed out that our leaders often don’t feel justified in modifying revelations of predecessors; however, the temple ceremony has undergone many changes to reduce fears, misunderstanding, and discomfort in my lifetime. In my best moments, I hope for the kinds of changes you seem to envision. In the meantime, I don’t see that these fears are unjustified. I suppose the fact that the scriptures sometimes contradict the temple creates space for alternate interpretations.
Penguin “Carol Lynn does not exploit our fear. She does us the courtesy of taking us seriously, which quite frankly no male in this church has ever done.” Sorry you feel that way. The fear is an incredible burden to carry and there have been rampant speculations at least by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith and others, in addition to the relevant D&C section and the very 19th century form of the endowment liturgy that fuel those fears. I think, however, that the last clause quoted above must be rhetorical hyperbole because it is not true that no male in this church has ever taken such fears seriously. I think it is true that no male in a position of authority to speak for the Church and change or clarify the teachings or culture that inspire the fears has done so, but there are men who have a fear of polygamy, men who believe it is not a celestial law, who reject polygamy or at least the “law of Sarah” and the way polygamy was practiced by Joseph Smith and others, and men who have spoken out about it, though none I know of in quite the same way Carol Lynn has. If a humorous, but in some ways serious approach, could help, try Steve P.’s post at
referring also to an earlier essay “In the heavens are parents single?” in Dialogue, volume 17, issue 1, pages 84-86, Spring , by the anonymous “Committee on Celestial Demographics”.
If a serious approach could help, though he believed early Mormon polygamy was God-directed in theory, if not always in the way it was practiced, try Eugene England’s essay at
http://www.eugeneengland.org/on-fidelity-polygamy-and-celestial-marriage
For me the biggest helps were my coming to the conclusions, that (a) despite popular Mormon culture and the speculations of BY, Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others, we know little or nothing about the nature of family relationships in the hereafter and (b) the D&C and the form of the endowment liturgy are subject to the same cultural and human error (and possibly deception) qualifications that apply to the Bible and other scriptures. (Joseph was not simply God’s stenographer; neither were the compilers and editors.) and (c) nothing prevents my privately making the same covenants with respect to my wife that she makes with respect to me in the endowment liturgy (which may, in my view, someday be changed to make them reciprocal there as well). I, for one, am not the least bit interested in being part of my earthly father’s eternal kingdom, principality, power, or dominion and not the least bit interested in being the boss (as implied by those terms) of anyone and not the least bit interested in engaging in polygyny. I recognize that those interests could change (and my “daddy-issues” have changed to some extent as I have come to believe that he has changed and will change) but in the meantime I am pleased to think of participation in sealing ordinances as being sealed to the family of God and to the extended human family without concluding that they somehow force on us family relationships that we do not or will not want. It may be that there are other ways for some people to prevent LDS culture and speculation from defining their fears. I hope you find yours.
JR, you are right–I did indulge in some heated hyperbole there. It is far more accurate to put it as your did, that no one in a position of authority had taken these concerns seriously that I know of. I genuinely appreciate the efforts and concerns of men in coming to grips with this thorny issue.
Thanks for your personal concern. Honestly, I’ve been terrified of God for years, and continue to make stumbling efforts to overcome that. There are so many contradictory things said about God and the life after in authoritative sources that I have found it impossible to simply choose one version among the many and pretend the other doesn’t exist. I’d pray for a witness if I trusted God to not lie to me, the strange conundrum I’ve found myself in these past years! Maybe someday.
D & C 132 referring to a marriage as a MAN and a WIFE, sets the tone for the marital imbalance that Angela keeps talking about, that so many somehow refuse to see. “Man” is a person in his own right. “Wife” is defined by of her relationship to a man.
Inconsistencies:
RLDS claims of monogamous JS and now accept JS polygamy.
LDS embraces polygamy for 40 years+ and now this new JS monogamy movement.
Missionary work in African where polygamy is not uncommon;
LDS missionaries teach new converts to marry one wife and ditch the others.
RLDS (now CofC) are tolerant of African plural marriages in converts there.
Hilarious.
Unreliable affidavits and unreliable witnesses: where do we begin? Because there is no end.
Perhaps the best starting point would be with JS himself.
Is he reliable?
The answer to this question determines the general flow and spin of almost every subsequent argument. We just can’t seem to get out of the logical trap of arguments from authority.
I do admire Brother Brian Hales for putting his thoughts and position out here on the line and he seems to be withstanding the withering cross fire with dignity. I think I can see a smile still on his face reflected in my seer stone. These are difficult issues for many of us. But at the end of the day we are all sisters and brothers before the Lord and generally in the Mormon tribe to some extent or another.
brianhales, re. “harboring fears”
My daughter was in a institute class at USU a few years ago. In a discussion that started on a different topic, a girl in class made the comment that accepting the content of Section 132 had been hard for her, but she now knew that plural marriage could come back at some point in her mortal life and she was prepared to live it. The teacher said, “Yes, understanding the doctrine is key.”
Until that point, my daughter probably harbored little fear of polygamy. But she walked out of there a changed woman. That the church does nothing to stamp out the teachings and interpretations that fuel a comment like the teacher’s is so weak. (Having a little sidebar in the teacher’s manual about not “speculating” is not enough.)That the polygamy essays did virtually nothing to disavow the coercion, pressure and manipulation in Mormon polygamy was also weak.
My daughter isn’t harboring fears about polygamy coming back, preparing her heart like that girl in her class. She knows it’s not. She doesn’t believe God had anything to do with it in the first place, although she deeply respects the faith and sacrifice of those who did. Harboring fears of polygamy didn’t harm her attachment to the church; if she were afraid and compliant, she’d stay attached. It’s *not* being afraid that moves her away.
It’s very sad to see the church’s apparent obliviousness to the impact of polygamy apologetics on modern girls. They’re losing some good ones.
Ruth-
It’s pretty much why they lost me
Brian Hales, it is pretty nice of you to wade into the comments here and address some of the arguments as you have. I also want to thank you for hosting your research and source material as you have on your Mormon Polygamy Documents webpage. That is a truly awesome resource.
With that said, I have to think that the concepts surrounding both mortal and immortal polygamy are pretty well discussed by those most near (in time) to its introduction and teaching. They didn’t seem to wave away a bunch of the uncomfortable conclusions as we have. It seems to me we do ourselves a disservice when we are ignorant of the justifications and theology they provided for the practice. Instead, we have cherry-picked the “feel-good” aspects from their theology (e.g., eternal families, sealings) and largely ignored the nasty stuff (e.g., eternal polygamy, viviparous spiritual birth, the compulsion involved, expanding the kingdoms of men, etc.). Orson Hyde’s diagram of the kingdom of God, as well as the contemporary discussion around the concepts, most certainly viewed women as a path to greater posterity and larger kingdoms for those men who were worthy (i.e., had their Second Anointing). Brigham Young’s rhetoric about women being “given” to more righteous men in order to expand their kingdoms is another example of where we conveniently ignore pretty clear statements on how things will be organized in the hereafter. Those types of comments drift into “women are property” territory, in my view, so it makes a lot of sense to me when women read those statements and draw logical conclusions, especially given the fact that Church theology has not repudiated the statements. In fact, I’d argue that their statements carry a lot more authority on the matter than the ruminations of apologists (no offense intended). Those leaders were taught these concepts by Joseph Smith and were “on the ground”, so to speak, when the theology was developed. They were pretty consistent and were early in that consistency in these matters. They don’t appear to have made it up whole cloth. As such, it seems folly to me to not take them at their word and instead pretend that we don’t know much about how the afterlife will look in this regard. Either they knew what they were talking about or they didn’t. We can’t just simply resort to the, “oh, that’s just silly ol’ Brigham,” defense. We either need to outright state that they didn’t know what they were talking about, or we need to realistically deal with the theology they espoused. Of course, to admit that they didn’t know what they were talking about places many of our theological sacred cows in jeopardy since those cows are branches of the polygamy doctrine, cherry picked because they are palatable. No doubt the leaders are in a tough spot on this.
Cody … “to admit that they didn’t know what they were talking about places many of our theological sacred cows in jeopardy since those cows are branches of the polygamy doctrine”
Love the mixed metaphor! Don’t know where you’re going with this, but there may be room for differences of opinion as to which doctrines are roots or branches of others. In the meantime, it seems that since about 1890-1906 the Church has already gone with they didn’t know what they were talking about when they insisted that a polygamous marriage was essential to exaltation in the celestial kingdom. To mix it up some more, perhaps the didn’t-know-what-they-were-talking-about horse is already out of the barn, while the sacred cows are still milling about and the whole crew is out picking cherries. Then again, maybe I’m thinking of a horse of a different color.
“Either they knew what they were talking about or they didn’t.”
That argument doesn’t make sense to me at all. Even when you talk about experts in given fields, they don’t always agree, and even when they do, they can turn out to be wrong later. And everything, including revelation, needs to be placed in the context of the time and place. Words and expressions don’t mean the same things 200 years later. And all revelation is filtered by the preconceptions of the person receiving it (including us!). Just because the early saints thought they understood something completely didn’t mean they did. Even a prophet doesn’t necessarily understand exactly what’s being revealed to him — it seems to take time to digest.
I don’t understand polygamy. It makes no sense to me. I’ve waffled back and forth as to whether I’ve felt it was instituted by a confused, a fallen, or a submissive Joseph. I don’t feel I don’t feel I have a very good view of what the eternities are like, or what family connections are like. The idea of viviparous birth in the eternities makes no sense — my physical body didn’t come from Heavenly Mother, and it makes no sense to apply the word “vivaparous” to a spiritual body, whatever a spiritual body might be. I’ve decided I believe it was a submissive Joseph, because I feel I’ve had a witness of the sealing power in my own family, and as others have pointed out, that doctrine came in the same parcel as polygyny.
But because I can’t take their (the early church leaders’) understandings at face value, I can’t take our current reasoning to be particularly accurate either. I don’t consider myself to be all that unsympathetic to the fear, grief, and anger people like Penguin express at the idea of eternal polygyny, but I completely agree with Brian Hales that it’s not a place worth dwelling. We truly have no concept of what family life in the eternities is. We have to remember that the eternities are not a reflection of what happens here on earth. What happens here on earth, in it’s best possible configuration, aspires to be a weak representation of what’s in the eternities. Consequently I simply focus on trying to live the commandments that I believe are from God in this place and time, trust God in all the blessings He’s promised, and don’t fear.
I’m sure some woman will say it’s easy for me not to fear, because I’m a man and wouldn’t have to share my wife. Well, I also don’t believe that if I had died 10 years ago and that another man had married my wife and raised my children that he would be cut out of our family in the eternities simply because I was first. I know other people believe that, and that some men wouldn’t marry a woman in that situation because of that very fear. Personally, I would feel very indebted to that good man, and could easily envision both of us sealed to my wife. I don’t believe either of us would be giving anything up in that arrangement.
Martin: “But because I can’t take their (the early church leaders’) understandings at face value, I can’t take our current reasoning to be particularly accurate either.” Good point.
You are right that most LDS men who haven’t previously been sealed will not marry LDS women who have already been sealed. These women are untouchables in our current construct thanks to our practice of not allowing them to be sealed to their second husband. The inequality creates an underclass of women.
I certainly agree that dwelling on it isn’t helpful, but ignoring it also requires work.
Martin and Angela, I think you both make good points but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you on whether we should dwell on it. Well – scratch that – “dwell” isn’t what I’m thinking of. I think we need to seriously wrestle with it and cannot ignore it simply because of the effects it has in the here-and-now. Whether we think we can take early church leaders’ understandings at face value or not, from my perspective a lot of our current theology regarding women’s roles in eternity, gay marriage, and even our approved temple marriage practices are derived from those teachings. Sure, we’ve massaged them, focusing on the best ones, but the awful teachings have not been repudiated. We claim men can marry polygamously and that gender is eternal, with consequences here and now for women, transgendered, and gay people. We also claim that gay marriage is not valid. Those are real creeds that impact real people today and those creeds are built on the theology of previous leaders, intertwined very closely with polygamy.
I guess my frustration with this is that the legacy of that previous theology has direct impact now. We – ostensibly – believe it has direct impact in the future. Our church is inflicting a lot of pain and suffering now as a result of these concepts. Our leaders and many church members act as if they are so certain – certain enough to knowingly inflict pain on others. I’m sorry, but I guess if someone is going to do that I’m simply going to ask them to put up or shut up. I want to see the source of their certainty. If it is built on the flimsy stuff we’re talking about here (e.g., we don’t really know what eternity is like, revelation is squishy, yes they got a bunch of stuff wrong, etc.), then I’m going to get pretty upset about the harm being done based on such flimsy evidence. I’m not the one stating certainty (and I know you two aren’t either), but I’m going to demand those who act with certainty back up that certainty. They don’t get to cherry-pick theology. I want to know precisely why we’re going to dismiss the uncomfortable aspects of early leaders’ teachings (teachings done with the full force of their authority as claimed prophets, seers, and revelators) while simultaneously utilizing other aspects to brow-beat our fellow members into submission, or drive them out entirely. It makes zero sense to me.
Sorry, that was a bit of a rant.
Cody, I understand your point, and I’m not suggesting that practical things shouldn’t be wrestled with. You’ll notice the church finally threw up its hands and started posthumously sealing women to every husband they had in life. Who’s to say which of those sealings have effect in the eternities or whether they all do? I’m sure you could get various answers from various leaders, some of whom would express their opinion with certainty.
I think when it comes to homosexual sex, I think it’s likely the 1st Pres and Q12 are unanimous that is sin. I’m not sure how many would say they were absolutely certain, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they all did. It’d be interesting to hear their unfiltered opinions on polygamy — my guess is they’d express less certainty. I also think it’ll be interesting to see what happens in the future with transgender people — unlike homosexuality, I don’t know of any scriptural precedent or teaching regarding it. Excommunicating people for a sex-change operation seems derived from our understanding of eternal nature of gender, but it seems just as easy to blame gender dysphoria on the wrong body as it is on the wrong (or malfunctioning) brain. In other words, there are so many birth defects, who’s to say a person couldn’t have been born in the wrong body? I do believe all these things should be wrestled with, and leaders ought to be careful what they’re “certain” about.
However, to say “They don’t get to cherry-pick theology” is silly. Of course they do. That’s precisely their pay grade. But I’m not convinced they’re so certain of everything you seem to think they are. I think part of the reason they don’t repudiate specific things in D&C 132 or other places is precisely because they don’t know. They weren’t there. So instead of speaking against stuff they don’t understand, they simply de-emphasize them and stick with the stuff they feel more certain of. That’s what I do personally to have faith in the church.
The other thing is that the exact teaching which inflicts so much pain in one person can be the balm and source of strength for another. For example, it boggles the feminists minds that so many Mormon women are content with the sexism in the church. They seem to think it’s merely a conditioned response or a mass Stockholm syndrome, but it isn’t. A great number of Mormon women feel that the church and God value them just as much as the men, and actually like that their husbands hold the priesthood and “preside” in their homes (though I think they may picture what this means differently than the feminists do). The idea that men and women aren’t interchangeable but have separate and equally important roles appeals to them and increases their sense of personal worth. For your average outraged feminist, it does exactly the opposite. It makes them feel less-than.
I think the historical idea that once “a prophet speaks, the thinking is over” mentality is going to dissipate more and more, not just among the liberals but the conservatives as well. I think that will create a meeker GA, on average, and that will likely relieve some tension in the church. But I also think that only the meeker liberals will remain in the church. They seem just as certain of themselves as the conservatives.
Oh, I’ll add a parenthetical note to my transgender point. From a strictly secular, rational point of view, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The body might be completely healthy but the person is still in distress. Surgically and chemically altering the body can seriously risk it’s physical well-being, but the mental distress is relieved. Presumably, with some medical advances, gender dysphoria will eventually be cheaper and safer to fix in the brain. However, if one believes in the eternal nature of gender, such as is currently taught in Mormonism, one could argue that simply re-orienting the brain wouldn’t relieve the stress, because the spirit still wouldn’t match.
Martin-
I am going to contest your assertion that you understand polygyny anxiety because your wife could be sealed again as a widow. It’s not sharing a husband that gives me polygyny anxiety; it’s having my status reduced from second class person to first class object. I. Am. No. Man’s. Property. Full stop. As Cody mentioned, the full doctrine of polygamy includes adding wives to increase a man’s glory, and the only words I have for that are four letters long and not polite in mixed company.
I’m also going to point out that the labels “feminists” and “Mormon women” are not mutually exclusive. There’s a large overlap in that Venn diagram, and we can’t dismiss the concerns of some women just because not all women share those same concerns. Such thinking is a hallmark of second class status: unless we all agree, those in the first status tier don’t have to listen.
Cody, I think I now understand much better where you were going with cherry-picking sacred cows. At least those of us raised as members of the Church some time ago grew up expecting clarity and consistency from prophets who had regular conversations with God about all troublesome matters of concern. Then that natural inference from what we were taught (in some cases explicitly and not by implication or inference) was reinforced by the use of Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” in missionary discussions some of us were required to memorize and teach verbatim. However, consistency is not to be had and clarity is over-rated. (Amos’ Lord GOD must in fact do very little if bound by Amos’ hopeful statement taken broadly and literally.) In the process we learned to cherry-pick the scriptures looking for proof-texts to support our views of history, theology and even cosmology. (Of course, New Testament writers also did that with the Old Testament; it’s a time-honored tradition.) Certainty is still widely pushed but is as much the opposite of faith as doubt is. It may be that it is time for you to “to get pretty upset about the harm being done” as a result of policies based upon potentially unjustified certainty. For me the more serious question has been what to do as a result of being pretty upset. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to that question.
As for consistency, e.g., Joseph Fielding Smith taught that gender was not eternal (at least not into the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms). You’ll find that in “Doctrines of Salvation”, still touted by Deseret Book, as “an authoritative work, written by the most outstanding scholar of the gospel in the Church containing a wealth of explanations about a vast array of gospel topics, many of which can not be found in other sources.” That 3 volume work was compiled by Bruce R. McConkie who died more than ten years before the Proclamation on the Family was first read to a General Relief Society meeting by President Hinckley in 1995. Maybe gender is not eternal. Maybe we don’t even need to wait for arrival in the telestial or terrestrial kingdom to find out. Even apart from the genesis of the Proclamation as a document in support of the Church’s position relative to the mid-90s effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii, the concept of eternal gender (pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal) also makes no sense for mortal hermaphrodite humans with other than standard male/female combinations of X and Y chromosomes. Maybe it also makes no sense for those few with standard male chromosomes who have functioning ovaries in addition to functioning male sex organs. Maybe it also makes no sense for those few males raised as female because of a botched circumcision. Maybe if gender is universally eternal we must conclude that such people are not really people, but that notion is not going to gain any traction with anyone.
In October 2010 Boyd K. Packer claimed the Proclamation “qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation.” Then he changed that impulsive statement in the printed version to demote the Proclamation to “a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow.” Reduced to such a guide rather than revelation or eternal doctrine, it can make more sense.
We’ve had a variety of definitions of “revelation”. Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church, denied under oath to Congress that he had not received a revelation. (This may have been dissembling, but it may also have resulted from a definition issue he didn’t choose to note or explain.) I wonder how well the current Church would take a sworn statement from its President that he had not received any revelation. Recently (October 2014), Russell M. Nelson seemed to define revelation as whatever you can get the First Presidency and Q12 to agree on. Maybe that’s what BKP had in mind in 2010, but it ain’t scriptural. Then RMN claimed in January 2016 that the 2015 Policy of Exclusion resulted when “the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us [the FP and Q12] during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation.” Not even one of the other members of the FP or Q12 can be found to have publicly backed him up on that statement. The lack of such supporting testimonies is in great contrast to what happened when the 1978 revelation was announced. There can be numerous inconsistent speculations as to why none but RMN have publicly claimed spiritual confirmation that the Policy of Exclusion was the mind or will of the Lord.
In view of this mess (and more), some do not to expect of current Church leaders any more than of the Apostle Paul who saw “through a glass, darkly” 1 Corinthians 13:12. Some do not feel impelled to take the all-or-nothing approach that others feel impelled to take. Martin has described his approach to having “faith in the church.” He may be right that cherry-picking [for current church administration] among earlier leaders’ statements is in the current FP/Q12’s pay grade; but I cannot agree that your frustration is silly. Instead, your frustration is a natural outgrowth of Church teachings noted in the first paragraph of this rant. Martin’s approach works for some, but I must note that “faith in the church” is not one of the principles of the gospel. Instead, faith in/trusting Christ is one of those first principles. Not trusting in the “arm of flesh” is a corollary to it. Determining when faith in the Church constitutes faith in Christ and when it constitutes trusting in the arm of flesh might be the real problem. I think I’ll have to quietly do my own cherry-picking with the best guidance I can get from the Lord even if that is not much.
Incidentally, I grew up with a cherry orchard and with cows. I like cherries. I despise cows. Ours were not sacred.
JR: My frustration doesn’t stem from an unrealistic expectation of leaders resulting from thinking they have regular PPIs with Jesus. I’ve never had that perception. A lot of our doctrines that we act so certain about, yet when pressed are really quite uncertain about, create boundaries where none need exist, causing unnecessary pain, are what frustrate me. I hesitate to thread jack any more than I already have, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Martin: “However, to say ‘They don’t get to cherry-pick theology’ is silly. Of course they do. That’s precisely their pay grade.” Fair enough. I should have said they “shouldn’t get to”. They’re not the church and I am unpersuaded by appeals to authority. I don’t care their pay grade.
Cody, I must have gotten lost in your earlier rhetoric (as I got lost in my own with the double negative denied/not as to Joseph F. Smith’s testimony; he denied having received revelation). It seems now that the problem is not so much cherry-picking as it is some people’s certainty that the cherries they picked are not rotten. Personally, I think some of them are rotten — or at least fermented, though I could be wrong. In any event, they do indeed cause unnecessary pain by creating boundaries where I believe none need exist.
Lindsey S: “D & C 132 referring to a marriage as a MAN and a WIFE, sets the tone for the marital imbalance that Angela keeps talking about, that so many somehow refuse to see. “Man” is a person in his own right. “Wife” is defined by … her relationship to a man.”
Laying aside for the moment all my other problems with D&C 132, I have a much stronger testimony of the German version than of the English (which, however, is not saying much). In the German “Man” is ambiguous; it can mean “man” or it can mean “husband.” Similarly, “Frau” is ambiguous; it can mean “wife” or it can mean “woman.” German also has less ambiguous terms for “husband” and “wife.” But they were not used in the currently official translation. There is, however, no way to get away from the validity of your comment as to the English.
Now with that moment passed, I also cannot get away from my revulsion at the (at-best implicit) notion that a woman can be a man’s property in any sense that is not at least equally true of her husband being her property. This aspect of 132 is at least partly evened out in the wording/covenants of the marital sealing ceremony, but that’s not what can be read in the D&C. Not so sure, however, that a wife cannot add to her husband’s “glory” whatever that is. I’m certainly better because of my wife. But I’d probably be worse if I had more than one, and I think at least one of my polygamous ancestors probably was worse in part because of his polygamy. I just hope I don’t detract from my wife’s “glory”.
I want to push back against this – “From a strictly secular, rational point of view, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The body might be completely healthy but the person is still in distress. Surgically and chemically altering the body can seriously risk it’s physical well-being, but the mental distress is relieved”
Gender Dysphoria is not a mental illness. Think of it as just another possibility that can cause problems with living life. Medical and psychological sciences are designed to help people either live with or change what parts of them are not meshing well with the sociality that is around their life. Each individual with gender dysphoria is different and lives in different circumstances. Balling everyone with gender dysphoria together as “mentally ill” and people who alter their body as “risking it’s physical well being” is both presumptuous and rude. People who have transitioned can be completely physically and mentally healthy.
For Mormons, we add the Spiritual to Physical and Mental, making this even more complicated. No one has yet invented a Spiritual gender detector, nor does everyone agree on the gender state of spirits. Even for those who subscribe to strict gender dimorphism in spirits, there has to be addressed the possibility of physical and spiritual gender mismatch. The Church is having trouble with this, as “elective” surgery to change gender is cause for excommunication, but some non-elective surgeries have been allowed. In the last few years, I’ve heard of excommunication more often more often than not for those who have begun transition, even for those who do no more than dress as their true gender.
To get back to the OP, fully informed, consensual polygamy is a way to keep marriages together when one (or both) parties are transgender but have married in the temple as one of each gender. If at least one of each gender is required for whatever “Celestial” is, then this is a way for those who find love with the same gender to find an additional person they all love and meet that requirement. It doesn’t fix the problem of those who are not able or willing to find someone of the other gender, but it gives hope to some, within the current theology.