We finished up our conversation with Anne Wilde by focusing on her life (including why she started Principle Voices) and learning more about scriptural polygamy. I asked Anne about her background.
Anne: I went to BYU on a scholarship, graduated with honors. I year after I graduated, I married in monogamy to Ted Wilde, was married in the temple. I was married for nine years but during that nine years I realized there had been a lot of changes made in the church. The two of us, he was very intelligent, a researcher, a scholar, not an author but knew a lot about the history of the church, so I learned a lot of that from him and then in visiting a lot of friends that he had.
One of those friends was Ogden Kraut and so when the marriage didn’t work out a year later, I became Ogden’s second wife. I was married to him for 33 years and then he died in 2002, 15 years ago. We had a really happy marriage…
As I learned more, Anne mentioned that Jesus was a polygamist!
Anne: I was his secretary so we got away with going places together because I typed his books. We were good friends and if anyone asked, “Well yeah, this is my secretary,” which was true.
When Jesus Was Married came out in [19]69, it was in February of ’69. That was Ogden’s first book, and he knew that Joseph F. Smith was president of the Quorum of Twelve at that time. He knew his belief that Jesus was married, so as soon as the books came out of the bindery, we took the first copy up to Joseph Fielding Smith and got right in. The secretary was there at that time, you know you could walk right in practically and see a general authority. The office door was open. Here was the receptionist. Could we give him this book? She motioned us in. We gave it to him and then we said, “What do you think?”
He said, “Oh, absolutely he was married. His account of his marriage is right in the New Testament. It could be no other way. The account of his marriage is in the New Testament, referring to the Marriage at Cana.”
Have you read Ogden Kraut’s book? Do you believe Jesus was married? We talked more about Jesus being married.
GT: Ok, so you’re saying that the wedding feast that Jesus turned water to wine, that was Jesus’ wedding?
Anne: That was his wedding.
GT: Who did he marry?
Anne: Probably Mary.
GT: Mary Magdalene?
Anne: He had at least three wives.
GT: Three wives?
Anne: Uh huh. Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene that we know of; there’s a quote that kings’ daughters were among his honorable wives. We wrote a whole book on that.
GT: Kings daughters were among his honorable wives.
Anne: among Christ’s honorable wives.
GT: I don’t understand what that means: Kings daughters?
Anne: He married kings’ daughters. Kings’ daughters were among his honorable wives, meaning the Savior’s wives.
GT: Ok so are you referring to Mary and Martha being the king’s daughters?
Anne: Not necessarily, but Mary Magdalene was from royalty.
GT: Mary Magdalene was from royalty?
Anne: Yeah. The translation on that, like we discussed earlier, was wrong.[1]
GT: Do you see that from—I don’t see that in the Joseph Smith Translation[2], or is that from revelation? How do you come up with that?
Anne: You’d have to read the book. There are a lot of references. Joseph Smith, for example, told two or three people, “You are direct descendants of Jesus Christ.” You can’t be that unless he had children, which he did.
I decided to ask Anne about some of the controversial aspects of D&C 132. I know a lot of people were really bothered by the Gospel Topics reference to the Law of Sarah. Did you know that is an actual marriage ordinance?
GT: I’m going to try my best to channel my LDS woman here, but they’re going to say, “Well look. You’re telling me—to me the Law of Sarah, if a man can be exempt from the Law of Sarah, what’s the point having a “Law of Sarah?” It’s more of an idea. It’s ideal.
Anne: No, it’s an ordinance. In fact during the marriage ceremony she is supposed to put the hand of the future wife, the prospective wife into the hand of her husband. That’s part of the ceremony. But if she doesn’t go along with it and is not going to be there, he’s exempt from that.
I also asked about concubines.
GT: I did remember one more question that I wanted to ask you concerning D&C 132. One of the references in there says something about wives and concubines. My understanding of the Old Testament, and I want to key in on that term concubines there, we look at it today, concubines are known more of as, especially with ISIS in the Middle East, those are basically sex slaves. They would take women who were conquered in war, try to convert them to Islam, and they are not full wives, and it seems awful for lack of a better word.
Anne: Right, oh yeah, I agree.
GT: It seems like these are literally sex slaves. So I have a concern about that in 132. It says in there that God gave Abraham and David wives and concubines. It is my understanding of the Old Testament especially, a lot of these wives that David and Solomon had were arranged marriages with other kingdoms. They were there to build alliances. These were not Jewish women. When we talk about the sealing, I can’t imagine how if Abraham is marrying a gentile, and many of these wives certainly would have been gentiles, why? In my modern understanding, if you want to be sealed together forever, you’ve got to be members of the church or at least worthy members of the priesthood. I wouldn’t expect Ogden Kraut to go marry some non-LDS…
Anne interrupts: Unbeliever.
GT: Unbeliever, that’s a better word for it, an unbeliever. Why would God sanction concubines specifically? Is that the same thing as a sex slave as we’re thinking of now? I’ll just stop there.
Anne: Well my understanding of that is that they are “lesser wives.” They are not covenant wives. They are probably not eternal-type wives. But I think there are traditions and customs in countries that God allows to happen. They may not be His religious way of doing things, but he allows them to adhere to the customs and traditions of the country at the time. I would assume it was something like that.
Abraham was building up a kingdom, kind of like, whatever the reason, God acknowledged that. It’s not a religious thing necessarily. We talk about the difference between civil rights and religious rights, they were civil ceremonies probably, probably. I really don’t know how to explain that any better.
GT: These concubines would have been for time only essentially?
Anne: Yeah, correct.
What are your thoughts regarding concubines? What are your thoughts regarding biblical polygamy? Was Jesus married? a polygamist? Is polygamy an eternal principle? Is a man justified in having concubines?
——
[1] The 8th Article of Faith says, “WE BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE THE WORD OF GOD AS FAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY.” A September 2015 Ensign article at LDS.org gives more information. See https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/09/to-the-point/what-does-the-eighth-article-of-faith-mean-when-it-says-we-believe-the-bible-to-be-the-word-of-god-as-far-as-it-is-translated-correctly?lang=eng
[2] Joseph Smith believed that many errors were in the bible and many plain and precious parts were removed. As early as 1831, he received revelations restoring many lost verses, and these extra versions are known as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. The LDS Bible has various verses added as footnotes, as well as an appendix. The Community of Christ retains the original copyright, and has these verses added as their official version of the Bible, known as the Inspired Translation. For a basic history, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible
Wheat & Tares 
“Jesus was a polygamist” was deep doctrine that was passed around in my mission. I’m sure it originated from LDS church leaders’ defense of polygamy.
i think you are kicking against the pricks.
I wish we had something of the first wife’s thoughts on this. it seems easy for Anne to be happy with the arrangement, as she’s the newer wife and has no legal or societal connection that binds her to him.
I don’t buy the thought that Jesus was married at all, but it doesn’t really matter to me if He was, even to multiple women (or men). The only time it comes up as important is when people want to rationalize themselves. That it was Joseph Fielding Smith confirmed doesn’t mean much to me; he also believed we’d never go to the moon cause it wasn’t out world, and that others already lived there.
I am once again reminded that I don’t understand those that practice polygamy. I want to be charitable about Anne’s viewpoint, but none of it (now, historically, or biblically) makes any sense to me. Seems like men trying to understand God rather than a message from God.
Which of the following claims is more obnoxious and speculative?
1. Jesus Christ was married to 2 or 3 women at the same time.
2. George Albert Smith might have been married to 2 or more women at the same time.
There is not a scrap of evidence that Christ was married, only that He healed or talked to women (which some modern married Mormon men find a bit on the risky side). Circumstantial evidence suggests as a normal human (which He was not) He might have been married since it was common at the time and since He did appear to a woman first after His resurrection suggesting she maybe, might, double might, have been His wife or sister. This pure speculation.
There is not a scrap of evidence that George Albert Smith took multiple wives. Circumstantial evidence includes the fact that his father, John Henry Smith of the first presidency was about the most ardent advocate for post-manifesto polygamy, and many of their contemporaries participated in it. Over 100 children were eventually born to post-manifesto apostles’ new secret wives. Now that documentation of the 1886 Taylor revelation has been widely circulated on the web (including this cite), it would seem remarkable for one to rise so quickly in the ranks of leadership if they didn’t participate in plural marriage; certainly more likely than not, that any random one of them did.
It is clear the LDS church lied about post-manifesto polygamy and went to the utmost means to hide it for decades and it is not much of a reach to think that a few must have been successful hiding these marriages from the view of history. The only way to discover these secrets is to guess them and then investigate them. Ubiquitous lack of transparency for over 100 years insures this process will never be complete.
If you answer #2, then think why? Does this not most clearly reveal who you really worship or favor? Modern prophets over the Savior?
***
More on topic , do we Mormons realize just how obnoxious to mainstream Christians it is to suggest that Jesus Christ was married?
For starters the Protestant Jesus is part of the Trinity and thence would be married to one of his created offspring, a spiritual daughter (incestoid) and sort of like high level bestiality since it crosses species as the uncreated Trinity God is most definitely not Homo sapiens. And the Trinity God did not fukolate around with the Virgin Mary either.
Sexual sin for Protestants includes all expressions of sexuality. Least offense, but still not a small matter is when expressed in the bounds of marriage; more offensive is when done premaritially; and even worse when done in violation of marriage covenants, or against gender conventions. The best example of original sin is sexual urges since they are by definition unholy and do occur in almost every human. The elevation of celibacy with the honor given to monks and nuns makes sense in no other way. the only modern adjustment is to downplay the sinfulness of marital sex. To suggest that a perfect Savior has sexual relations is ridiculous. And Protestants don’t look forward to having sex in heaven either. (Orthodox Mormons might snark: they might be right on that one, for themselves at least).
Protestants do NOT read the Old Testament as God commanding or even allowing polygamy , rather the stories are interpreted as illustrating the disasters that follow from it. The KJV is most clear when it relates that Abraham hearkened to his wife (not to the Lord) and took the Egyptian maid (likely black or mixed race at best –problematic for LDS pre-1978) to wife to bear children. And hatred followed. ( Genesis 16:1-4.). To claim that Jesus Christ was so foolish as to take multiple wives is an unthinkable fabrication to Protestants. Bordering on the idiotic and certainly obscene in the extreme.
I do find this site growing increasingly narrow-minded. * Edgy but not too edgy… Anything beyond mild heretics is slammed and of course anything orthodox is also soundly corrected. Most sites do tend to specialize over time, grow more narrow in scope and turn into an echo chamber. I hope you enjoy my little vacation as much as I have so far..
* (See comment #16 on the Oct 30 2017 Uncannonized Revelation….
in contrast to the numerous responses to ji on the Nov 10, 20127 –Dissolution of the Family
I doubt even 15% of baptized Mormons would fall between these two boundaries. .
Mike – I guess I’m not seeing why any of that is relevant. Why does it matter which is more speculative (Jesus or GAS)? How does that have anything to do with loyalty? Why do we care what the protestants or anyone else thinks?
As Jesus was baptized to fulfill the law requiring that ordinance to enter into the Celestial Kngdom, I would not be surprised if he also entered into marriage to have that required ordinance for entering into the highest degree of that kingdom—to fulfill that law too. But I just cannot buy into plural marriage of any kind because of the inequities of time, intimacy, fulfillment and sacrifice. The husband never goes without these comforts and joys, but the wives must endure having a very part-time husband. This creates favoritism toward men and would seem to make untrue the claim from God, himself, that he is no respect or of persons. It also creates a shortage of women available for other men to marry, which is unfair to them. I think humans have a powerful tendency to rationalize unacceptable behavior by turning and twisting things to justify their choices. Saying God did/does something is the ultimate justification, even if he didn’t/doesn’t. Sadly, if he is plurally married it will affect my esteem for him to a degree.
Glory…that would be no small sorrow.
I think it is pure speculation if Jesus was married. It is highly unlikely he was a polygamist. The jewish people at that time did not practice it.I also think and the events seem to back this up is Joseph Smith made up polygamy. His version where he was married to other men’s wives is certainly made up by him.
I posted this at StayLDS, but I want to post it here too.
I don’t know what to make of concubines, but clearly it was in D&C 132:1
verse 37
But according to Anne, these likely time-only sealings? That’s not what I read in verse 37. Abraham was righteous.
verse 38-39
But like I said, if these were Baal-worshiping concubines, and likely they were or some other idol-worshipers, it sounds like these are God approved. It doesn’t make sense to me.
The idea of God seeing women as a piece of property to be given to this man or given to that man is deeply abhorrent to me. I recognize that women were property historically, but the idea that God approved of that or encouraged it is ridiculous.
In the quoted scriptures above, note that the only righteousness that mattered was the mens’. The womens’ was apparently irrelevant…
I don’t personally care if the marriage was time-only marriages or eternity sealings. I care way more as to whether or not the women had a choice, if they were coerced into these relationships, if they had relationships with their spouses that was more than sex. Yes, I know that on one hand I am judging an ancient culture based on modern morality. On the other hand, I’m judging God’s sense of morality. Even more I’m judging this culture’s (whether it be Abraham’s culture, David’s culture, or JS’s culture) ability to correctly understand God’s morality.
This is not true at all.
This is true.
Jesus definitely has a bride. It’s the church.
The edition of Jesus the Christ I read, the first time I read the book (white paperback with gold spine I think, part of a set of books including MoF, and DoS) belonging to my parents, had lots of crazy footnotes, including one about Jesus being married, and the wedding at Cana likely being his. I’ve not seen those interesting footnotes in current editions, and it kind of annoys me that edition information is not included in so many such publications.
I’m troubled by the idea that “As Jesus was baptized to fulfill the law requiring that ordinance to enter into the Celestial Kngdom, I would not be surprised if he also entered into marriage to have that required ordinance for entering into the highest degree of that kingdom—to fulfill that law too.”
It implies that people not married are fulfilling some sort of law–and that if they don’t get married in this life, too bad. I’m sure that’s not the intent of the comment, but I see no reason to believe Christ needed to be married for him to have fulfilled all righteousness.
Sorry, first line of the second paragraph should read “It implies that people not married are not fulfilling some sort of law.”
Yes Brian, it’s right there in D&C 132: According to Mormon theology, you must be married to get into Celestial Kingdom. Fundamentalists like Anne think you must be polygamists to get into the highest degree of CK. That’s why it sucks to be single in the LDS Church. Unfortunately, single people really are second class citizens, theologically speaking, in the LDS Church. With the theological emphasis on marriage, I don’t see that changing. It’s baked in. I wish it wasn’t that way, but I think they’d have to dump D&C 132 to change that mindset. To be single, is to be incomplete. Older single person will get lots of pats on the head, “I hope you find someone in the next life.” It sucks.