Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Polygamy

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to MormonThink page "Polygamy"

The First Vision

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

Blacks and the Priesthood

Quick Navigation

• LDS scriptures condemn polygamy
• Polygamy was started by Joseph Smith not Brigham Young
• Gordon B. Hinckley
• Parley P. Pratt and polygamy

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: There were more women than men in the 1800s and polygamy provided a way for women, particularly widows to have the benefits of a husband....Brother [John] Lynch admits to John Dehlin that many commonly-held beliefs of the members are untrue - specifically mentioned are that there were NOT more women than men in the Church when they practiced polygamy.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  Was John Lynch previously hiding this fact and was finally forced to "admit" it? John A. Widtsoe "admitted" the same thing decades ago—this is not a secret.
• Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about why plural marriage was practiced, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of those reasons in its manuals. Why does Elder John A. Widtsoe specifically deny such explanations in the Church's official magazine?
• In Utah, there were always more women worthy of temple marriage than there were men. So, plural marriage might not increase the number of children born, but it could very easily increase the number of children born to active families with dedicated parents. Given a choice between not marrying at all, or marrying a man who was not as active or dedicated, do you think it surprising that some dedicated LDS women preferred a plural relationship with a believing, temple-worthy man?

Quotes to consider

• "The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence." - John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (1943), p. 390. (Acknowledged on the MormonThink site)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: Polygamy was not practiced until after the Saints started immigrating to Utah, and done so that women, whose husbands had died from the exertions of the trek, could be taken care of.

FairMormon commentary

• The Church doesn't include any of those reasons in its manuals. Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about why plural marriage was practiced, is this the Church's fault?

Quotes to consider

• "The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence." - John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (1943), p. 390.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: Polygamy was not illegal in the 1800s and was not in violation of U.S. law or against the 12th article of faith, which supports obeying the laws of the land.

FairMormon commentary

• Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about plural marriage, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of these claims in its manuals.
• Do you think that Mormons at the time understood the laws of the land? Wouldn't they know about the legal status of polygamy? And, didn't they know about Article of Faith #12? So, why doesn't MormonThink try to help us think about and understand how the 19th century Saints understood the matter? They must have had an understanding that helped them feel comfortable with what they were doing.
• Why doesn't MormonThink help us understand those members and their choices, instead of just trying to condemn them?

Additional information

• Illegal to practice polygamy?—Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience. The Saints understood the law and believed they should obey it--except where that law infringed upon their religious liberty in ways that did not harm others. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: Polygamy was an acceptable way to rapidly increase the Church membership....This doesn't make any sense because a group of women can have far more children if they each have their own husband instead of sharing one man.

FairMormon commentary

• In Utah, there were always more women worthy of temple marriage than there were men. So, plural marriage might not increase the number of children born, but it could very easily increase the number of children born to active families with dedicated parents. Given a choice between not marrying at all, or marrying a man who was not as active or dedicated, do you think it surprising that some dedicated LDS women preferred a plural relationship with a believing, temple-worthy man?
• How many of you are descendants of polygamists? If there had been no polygamy, would you be here?
• The Church doesn't include any of those reasons in its manuals. Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about why plural marriage was practiced, is this the Church's fault?

Quotes to consider

• "Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there was no surplus of women." - John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (1943), p. 390.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
For example Brigham Young reportedly had 55 children by some 29 child-bearing capable wives but had those women had their own husbands they may have had 150 or more children in total.

FairMormon commentary

• Why does MormonThink use the example of Brigham Young, who is the most extreme example available? He had more plural marriages than anyone else, ever.
• Why aren't we told that 66% of all polygamists had only two wives? Or that 87% had no more than 3? Or that at most 15-20% of LDS families ever practiced plural marriage? Do you think they might being trying to create an inaccurate picture here?
• Why aren't we told that under plural marriage, more women were married than the national norm in the United States? Why don't they consider the fact that women who do not marry won't have any children?^[1]
• Why doesn't MormonThink point these things out?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Polygamy was always illegal whenever and wherever the Mormons practiced it. It was even illegal in Canada and Mexico as they only recognize marriages that are legal in the person's home country.

Author's source(s)

• The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833
• The 1862 federal Morrill Act

FairMormon commentary

• Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about plural marriage, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of these claims in its manuals.
• Doesn't MormonThink think that Mormons at the time understood the laws of the land? Wouldn't they know about the legal status of polygamy? And, didn't they know about Article of Faith #12?
• So, why doesn't MormonThink try to help us think about and understand how the 19th century Saints understood the matter? They must have had an understanding that helped them feel comfortable with what they were doing.
• Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that the Church spent decades challenging the constitutionality of these laws?
• Why doesn't MormonThink help us understand those members and their choices, instead of just trying to condemn them?

Additional information

• Illegal to practice polygamy?—Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience. The Saints understood the law and believed they should obey it--except where that law infringed upon their religious liberty in ways that did not harm others. (Link)

FairMormon Response

1. REDIRECT 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy

FairMormon Response

1. REDIRECT Initiation of the practice of plural marriage/Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Note: If we take the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements so seriously, shouldn't we also accept other things that they reportedly witnessed just as powerfully? For example, Oliver Cowdery called it "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair..."

FairMormon commentary

• That's what Oliver thought that it was. He didn't accept the idea of plural marriage. In his eyes, it was a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair." Has someone claimed that Oliver did not believe this?
• Oliver didn't claim that an angel had come down and told him this--as he continued to insist to his dying day it had with the plates and other instruments.
• Does MormonThink really think that being a witness of one thing makes opinions on other subjects equally certain to be true? If I see a car accident and can tell about it, does my opinion about what caused my neighbor's divorce have the same weight?
• Oliver was already alienated from the Church and some members over other issues before plural marriage--could this have affected his reaction?
• Oliver later learned more about plural marriage and accepted the doctrine--why doesn't MormonThink tell us this?
• Oliver came back to the Church afterward--he must have resolved any concerns he had about it.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph's first polygamous marriage was before the sealing authority was given....The "sealing" power was not restored under LDS belief until April 1836 when Elijah appeared to Joseph and conferred the sealing keys upon him.

FairMormon commentary

• Why aren't they asking whether Joseph's first marriage was regarded as a "sealing?" Because it wasn't. Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, was sealed to Joseph by proxy in the temple after Joseph was murdered.
• In the modern Church, we think of sealing = marriage, but before 1836, the idea of sealing was not part of LDS doctrine. They still knew about marriage, though, and so Joseph and Fanny were married. Why isn't this explained? The idea is simple--what are they trying to get you to believe?
• Even hostile anti-Mormon sources agreed that Fanny and Joseph were married. Why would these sources claim that if it wasn't well-understood by those who knew about it? Wouldn't they take any opportunity to make Joseph look bad? Why say it was a "marriage" if it wasn't?

Quotes to consider

• Mosiah Hancock autobiography, in which Hancock reports that "Father gave her [Fanny] to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated to him."^[2] This is a marriage ceremony.
• Ann Eliza Young, a hostile anti-Mormon source, reported later that Fanny's "parents . . . considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the Prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time."^[3]
• Ann Eliza else where wrote: "I do not know that 'sealing' commenced in Kirtland but I am perfectly satisfied that something similar commenced, and my judgement is principally formed from what Fanny Algers [sic] told me herself concerning her reasons for leaving 'sister Emma.' "^[4] (emphasis added)

Additional information

• Fanny Alger and William McLellin—With a lone exception, there is no account after Joseph’s death of Emma admitting Joseph’s plural marriages in any source. The reported exception is recorded in a newspaper article and two letters written by excommunicated Latter-day Saint apostle William E. McLellin. The former apostle claimed to have visited Emma in 1847 and to have discussed Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger. McLellin also reported a tale he had heard about Joseph and Fanny Alger in which they were allegedly observed by Emma together in the barn. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Comment: Although Henry eventually remarried, after Brigham Young told him that his wife and children belonged to Brigham and not to Henry, he continued to yearn for Zina and their children. There doesn't seem to be any good, logical reason why Joseph and then Brigham Young would take Henry Jacob's wife Zina from him and force him to abandon his children and find another wife.

FairMormon commentary

• Henry didn't seem to think so--he supported the process.
• Joseph and Brigham didn't "take" Henry's wife and children. Zina chose to be sealed to them. Doesn't MormonThink think Zina and Henry can make their own decisions?
• Henry consented to the sealing, and was present to give his consent.

Additional information

• Zina and polyandry—In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.
• Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (FAIR 2006 Conference). (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
LDS apologists admit Joseph married other men's wives.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  LDS apologists are stating historical facts confirmed by sources. Why imply that they are "admitting" something as if they are reluctant to do so?
• More accurately, LDS apologists state that Joseph was sealed to other men's wives for the next life, while they remained married to their current husbands and continued living with them. Why not point this out?

Additional information

• Joseph Smith and polyandry—Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If you believe the concept of eternal marriage, then Joseph Smith literally stole other men's wives and their children, regardless of whether he had sex with them or not. What right did he have to do that - because he was the prophet?

FairMormon commentary

• To "steal" means to "take the property of another without right or permission." These women continued to live with, and have relations with, their earthly husbands.
• Did you know that Joseph had the permission of these women to be sealed to them, and in all cases where we are told about the husband's reaction, the men also gave permission? Polyandrous sealings appear to have been designed to bind members into one great family. This didn't destroy existing family relationships, it simply bound the members together.
• Why are there no examples of angry husbands upset that Joseph had cheated on them with their wives? Joseph's "polyandrous" relationships have no evidence of being consummated. Polyandry applied only the the next life and was probably designed to link families together.

Additional information

• Joseph Smith and polyandry—Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The following is from a love letter Joseph Smith wrote when he wanted to arrange a liaison with Newel K. Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann, whom Smith had secretly married without Emma's knowledge.

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink originally posted an edited version of this letter copied from a critical website that left out important information. They only corrected it when someone on an ex-Mormon message board pointed out that FAIR showed the text of the full letter, but they continue to refer to is as a "love letter."
• Read the whole letter, and ask yourself: who writes a love letter to his wife and her parents? Who asks his bride and her parents to come to a single private room for carnal relations?

Additional information

• Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?—It is claimed that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. The letter invites the Whitney family to come see Joseph; three days later Joseph sealed the Whitneys together. Why doesn't MormonThink tell you that? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
No one denies that Brigham Young had sex with his many wives. He had over 50 children. So why question whether or not Joseph had sex with his wives, even the ones who were already married to other men?

FairMormon commentary

•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  
• Lets follow this logic: Brigham Young had sex with his many wives. We know this because he had 50 children. Joseph Smith had no known children by his many wives, even the ones that were "married to other men." Therefore, this means.....oh, wait.
• Of course, as the site notes, 13 of Joseph's plural wives testified that they did have relations with him, but not any of the ones that were "married to other men."
• Why are there no examples of angry husbands upset that Joseph had cheated on them with their wives? Joseph's "polyandrous" relationships have no evidence of being consummated. Polyandry was probably designed to link families together.
• Did you know that Brigham Young had no polyandrous marriages? Instead, the members of his era used "adoption" sealings to bind families together. A person would be "adopted" by a Church leader, rather than "married" to a Church leader. This didn't destroy existing family relationships, it simply bound the members together.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If Joseph was commanded to marry these women for the express purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth, he would have been breaking the "commandment" from God if he did not try to procreate with his wives.

FairMormon commentary

• Well, if that was the only reason, then it seems that Joseph did a pretty lousy job of it then.
• Perhaps that wasn't the only reason Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage?

Additional information

• Purpose of plural marriage—Why would the Lord have commanded the 19th century Saints to implement plural marriage? What purpose(s) did polygamy accomplish? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."

Author's source(s)

• Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that in an article published in Mormon Historical Studies, Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously? [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

Additional information

• Sylvia Sessions Lyon—Some have thought that Sylvia Lyon was a polyandrous wife. However, Sylvia considered herself divorced at her sealing to Joseph, and there are documents which support this interpretation. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
When Joseph supposedly propositioned (or actually had sex with) fifteen year old Nancy Marinda Johnson, Dr. Dennison, with the encouragement of a neighborhood mob, nearly castrated him. Why would the mob try to castrate him? Castration is used as a penalty for sexual crimes only.

FairMormon commentary

• Van Wagoner describes the charge against Joseph: "One account related that on 24 March [1832] a mob of men pulled Smith from his bed, beat him, and then covered him with a coat of tar and feathers. Eli Johnson, who allegedly participated in the attack 'because he suspected Joseph of being intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda Johnson, … was screaming for Joseph's castration.'"
• Did you know that Van Wagoner's source is Fawn Brodie? Brodie's source, Clark Braden, also got his information second-hand 52 years after this incident occurred, and is clearly antagonistic, since he is a member of the Church of Christ, the “Disciples,” seeking to attack the Reorganized (RLDS) Church.
• Did you know that Brodie, Van Wagoner and MormonThink also gets the woman's name wrong—it is "Marinda Nancy," not "Nancy Marinda."
• Did you know that Marinda had no brother named Eli?

Quotes to consider

• Did you know that Van Wagoner and others admit in the footnotes that the story is probably false?

"That an incident between Smith and Nancy Johnson precipitated the mobbing is unlikely. Sidney Rigdon was attacked just as viciously by the group as was Smith." - Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 4, endnote.

• Did you know that members of the mob later discussed why they attacked Joseph, and it had nothing to do with immoral acts?^[5]
  • "And the leader of the mob, Simonds Ryder, later said that the attack occurred because members of the mob had found some documents that led them to believe “the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Smith” (Hill 1977, 146)." - Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 4, endnote.
• Did you know that Marinda Nancy Johnson remained a member of the Church, and was not a fan of plural marriage? Yet, she said this about Joseph's time there:
  • "Here I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission." - Marinda (Johnson) Hyde, Interview, cited in Edward Tullidge, Women of Mormondom (1877), 404.
• Why doesn't MormonThink provide this information? Even historians who use the story admit that it has major problems.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Some critics believe that Joseph may have gotten some of his wives pregnant but had them get abortions. This is what Sarah Pratt, whom Joseph excommunicated for refusing to have sex with him, said to Smith's son.

FairMormon commentary

• We're not surprised that "some critics" believe this—they have to account for the lack of children somehow.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
From the FAIR apologist web site discussing Joseph's marriages to women already married to other living men: "This is not to argue, I hasten to add, that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. I believe they were legitimate marriages, and as such could easily accommodate righteous marital relations."

FairMormon commentary

• What's MormonThink's problem with sex, anyway? Husband and wives often have sex, and there's nothing disgraceful or dirty about it. Why is it such a scandal if Joseph had conjugal relations with his plural wives? Every other Church president and leader who practiced plural marriage had conjugal relations with at least some of their wives too.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
FARMS also admits Joseph likely had sex with his plural wives FARMS reviewer Gregory L. Smith admits, 71 pages into his 86-page review of George D. Smith's new book, Nauvoo Polygamy: "…but we called it celestial marriage" ("George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy," FARMS Review 20:2, 2008), that Joseph Smith had "conjugal relations" with at least eight women in addition to his first wife, Emma.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  How does FARMS (actually the Maxwell Institute) "admit" something that is a well-documented fact from the Temple Lot case? Was someone hiding this?
•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  We get it, "apologists" have "admitted" this.
• But, this kind of "admission" is not new--another FARMS reviewer discussed the same matter years earlier in 1998. (See Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring, "The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives (Review of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith)," FARMS Review of Books 10/2 (1998): 67–104. off-site).
• A CES teacher, Danel Bachman, discussed these matters in the 1970s. (Danel W. Bachman, “A Study of the Mormon Practice of Polygamy Before the Death of Joseph Smith,” (1975) (unpublished M.A. thesis, Purdue University).)
• MormonThink does not, however, include any of the other data which Smith cites in his review above. Much of the material that would debunk MormonThink's claims is found in that review--why don't they include those facts on their page about plural marriage?
• MormonThink is simply not paying attention if they think this "admission" is new.
• Do you get the feeling that MormonThink is simply looking for negative material, and is not really interested in telling the whole story?
• And, what's MormonThink's problem with sex, anyway? Husband and wives often have sex, and there's nothing disgraceful or dirty about it. Why is it such a scandal if Joseph had conjugal relations with his plural wives? Every other Church president and leader had conjugal relations with at least some of their wives too.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If even the FARMS apologists, FAIR apologists and faithful LDS historians acknowledge that Joseph may have had sex with his polygamous wives (including the ones already married) then why should any LDS members dispute that Joseph likely did have sex with those wives?

FairMormon commentary
  Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
Why do they keep making sure to lump in "the ones already married" multiple times in the article. Where is the data?

• There is no evidence that Joseph's polyandrous sealings involved marital relations. This is not surprising, since the polyandrous sealings were likely designed to bind families together with Joseph.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It's often taught that concerning the marriage of Joseph to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball, it was Helen's father that initiated and arranged the marriage. This is not true. Before Smith approached Heber to have 14 year-old Helen as his bride, Smith called on Heber to turn over his wife, Vilate, to be Smith's wife....So after Joseph Smith went so far as to "test" Heber C. Kimball to see if he would turn over his wife, Smith then asked for his only daughter, 14 year-old Helen.

FairMormon commentary

• Wait a minute—Helen is the one that said that her father initiated and arranged the marriage. These quotes are included on MormonThink's own page! Here it is again:
  • "Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he [Heber] offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth." - Helen, cited in Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 498.
• Note that again this sealing was designed to bind families in the Church together.
• Joseph did test Heber and Vilate, and after they consented to give Vilate to Joseph as his wife, Joseph said that it was not required, and sealed them instead. So where are we supposed to make the leap of logic that "Smith then asked for his only daughter?" Can MormonThink produce some data indicating that the Heber/Vilate "proposal" was all a setup for Joseph to ask for their "only daughter?"
• To be precise, Helen was born on August 20, 1828 and sealed to Joseph in May 1843, three months short of her 15th birthday.

Quotes to consider

• Helen Mar Kimball: ""Without any preliminaries, my father asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives."
• Helen was upset when she first heard about plural marriage, because she thought her father was questioning her virtue:
  • Helen Mar Kimball: “My father was the first to introduce it to me, which had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake. When he found (after the first outburst of displeasure for supposed injury) that I received it meekly, he took the first opportunity to introduce Sarah Ann [Whitney] to me as Joseph's wife" (Whitney, Helen Mar Kimball (1880–1883), Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 1828-1896, Autobiography (c. 1839-1846), "Life Incidents," Woman's Exponent 9-10 (1880-1882) and "Scenes and Incidents in Nauvoo,") off-site (emphasis added)
• During the summer of 1843, Heber tried to explain plural marriage to Helen, who was then nearly fifteen. Of this experience she later wrote, "I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe--the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father . . . in the summer of 1843. . . ." Helen was very disturbed and skeptical. "The next day, the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it . . . ." - Stanley B. Kimball, "Heber C. Kimball and Family, the Nauvoo Years," Brigham Young University Studies 15/4 (Summer 1975): 465; citing H. M. Whitney, "Scenes and Incidents," 11(15 July 1882): 39.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Comments: Like many polygamous wives, Helen likely hated the very idea of polygamy when first introduced to it and for many years afterward as she said in many of her writings. The negative writings by Helen seem to greatly outweigh the positive writings. This is similar to Emma Smith, who at times accepted polygamy, but most of the time was bitterly opposed to the practice. As time went on Helen may have accepted it and even felt special by being known as one of the wives of the most revered prophet. Perhaps she decided to make the best of it as she had no choice at that point. No one but Helen herself can say for sure if she really enjoyed being a polygamous wife of Joseph Smith. However, one thing we can say with conviction is that a 14 year-old girl should never have been put in that position in the first place by Joseph and by her own parents.

FairMormon commentary

• How does one "weigh" the negative writings against the positive ones?
• Helen has already told us that she believed the doctrine when it was taught to her. Helen made the choice to be sealed to Joseph: "This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Autobiography, 30 March 1881, LDS archives; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham, 49.
• She realized, in retrospect, that she did not understand the trials that would result: "in [my mother's] mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me."
• Helen was one of the most vocal and persistent defenders of plural marriage among all nineteenth-century LDS women. MormonThink does not fairly represent her experience or her opinions.
• Let's let Helen speak for herself.

Quotes to consider

• [William Clayton spoke about plural marriage]…"his subject was polygamy, showing why it was so necessary, & the great loss of those that did not practice it; proving it by scripture, that what seemed to be theirs would be taken and given to another, that men with only one wife would be nothing but angels in the next world, it was very interesting; & I confess I understood things that night that I never did before, & saw not only the necessity but the beauty of polygamy our trials here look so small, when I look at the great glory that is in store for the few that will hold out faithfull to the end." - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney to Horace K. Whitney, 17 December 1869, Whitney Family Papers, Box 1, fd 1, ULA; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham, 162.
• I did not try to conceal the fact of its having been a trial, but confessed that it had been one of the severest of my life; but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a Saint and a free woman, in every sense of the word; and I knew many others who could say the same, and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons--a "blessing in disguise." – Helen Mar Kimball, Why We Practice Plural Marriage, 23-24.
• I have encouraged and sustained my husband in the celestial order of marriage because I knew it was right. At various times I have been healed by the washing and annointing, administered by the mothers in Israel. I am still spared to testify to the truth and Godliness of this work; and though my happiness once consisted in laboring for those I love, the Lord has seen fit to deprive me of bodily strength, and taught me to 'cast my bread upon the waters' and after many days my longing spirit was cheered with the knowledge that He had a work for me to do, and with Him, I know that all things are possible… - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, cited in Augusta Joyce Crocheron (author and complier), Representative Women of Deseret, a book of biographical sketches to accompany the picture bearing the same title (Salt Lake City: J. C. Graham & Co., 1884).

Helen's greatest trial occurred when she lost her newborn child at Winter Quarters:

• No one but God and the angels to whom I owe my life and all I have, could know the tenth part of what I suffered. I never told anybody and I never could. A keener taste of misery and woe, no mortal, I think, could endure. For three months I lay a portion of the time like one dead, they told me; but that did not last long. I was alive to my spiritual condition and dead to the world. I tasted of the punishment which is prepared for those who reject any of the principles of this Gospel. Then I learned that plural marriage was a celestial principle, and saw the difference between the power of God's priesthood and that of Satan's and the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord's annointed.

"I had, in hours of temptation, when seeing the trials of my mother, felt to rebel. I hated polygamy in my heart, I had loved my baby more than my God, and mourned for it unreasonably. All my sins and shortcomings were magnified before my eyes till I believed I had sinned beyond redemption. Some may call it the fruits of a diseased brain. There is nothing without a cause, be that as it may, it was a keen reality to me. During that season I lost my speech, forgot the names of everybody and everything, and was living in another sphere, learning lessons that would serve me in future times to keep mein the narrow way. I was left a poor wreck of what I had been, but the Devil with all his cunning, little thought that he was fitting and preparing my heart to fulfill its destiny…

I fasted for one week, and every day I gained till I had won the victory and I was just as sensible of the presence of holy spirits around my bedside as I had been of the evil ones. It would take up too much room to relate my experience with the spirits, but New Year's eve, after spending one of the happiest days of my life I was moved upon to talk to my mother. I knew her heart was weighed down in sorrow and I was full of the holy Ghost. I talked as I never did before, I was too weak to talk with such a voice (of my own strength), beside, I never before spoke with such eloquence, and she knew that it was not myself. She was so affected that she sobbed till I ceased. I assured her that father loved her, but he had a work to do, she must rise above her feelings and seek for the Holy Comforter, and though it rent her heart she must uphold him, for he in taking other wives had done it only in obedience to a holy principle. Much more I said, and when I ceased, she wiped her eyes and told me to rest. I had not felt tired till she said this, but commenced then to feel myself sinking away. I silently prayed to be renewed, when my strength returned that instant… - Representative Women of Deseret

• Helen is clear that plural marriage caused trials to her mother, but is also equally clear that it was a commandment. Her conviction and knowledge was the product of revelation.
• Why doesn't MormonThink let Helen speak for herself--which she does eloquently--instead of claiming it's "hard" to balance her statements? She doesn't seem to think it's hard at all.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Smith was killed 13 months after his sealing to Helen, so he simply may not have had the opportunity to consummate their relationship before his death. However, it's a virtual certainty that he would have if he had lived. The bottom line being that it's futile for Mormon apologists to argue that Smith's sealing to Helen was "dynastic" or "spiritual" only, in an effort to show that Smith's plural marriages to young girls were proper.

FairMormon commentary

• Isn't 13 months (a little over one year) enough time to consummate a marriage if one is really determined to do so?
• In other words, despite the total lack of evidence, and the fact that Helen herself wrote about plural marriage years later and never claimed such a thing, you simply want this to be true. It is a "virtual certainty."
• The word "virtual" is defined as "a condition without boundaries or constraints. It is often used to define a feature or state that is simulated in some manner." So, if you can't actually show any documented evidence in this case, you will simply simulate it. MormonThink has decided upon the answer it wants, and so it doesn't matter to them what the evidence shows.
• Is it really "futile" to argue a position based upon evidence against a "virtual" position? Think about it.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
1844 Sermon given by Joseph. It is clear that on May 26, 1844 Joseph lied about practicing polygamy, despite claims to the contrary.

Author's source(s)
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411
FairMormon commentary

• Joseph tried to teach plural marriage publicly to Church members, but many rejected it.
• Did Joseph have any duty to protect the Saints from the mobbing and deaths that would surely follow if plural marriage became widely known?
• Joseph showed himself willing to die to prevent attacks on the Saints—but, should he have been willing to risk the death of others because of what he was teaching?
• It is easy to criticize from the safety of the twenty-first century, when police protection is strong, and unpopular groups are not always at risk of vigilante justice.
• It seems like MormonThink would prefer that Joseph tell everything, and have the Saints slaughtered as a result. Polygamy was revealed as soon as it was safe to do so, even though the Church and its leaders knew that they would suffer political disadvantage.

Quotes to consider

• "What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did." - Orson Hyde, "The Marriage Relations," (6 October 1854) Journal of Discourses 2:75-75.

Additional information

• Hiding the truth about polygamy—It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The Church continued to practice polygamy after 1890.

FairMormon commentary

• In fact, "the Church" did not continue to practice polygamy. Some members of the Church continued to do so, well aware that they were violating Church policy.
• Once again, MormonThink does nothing to help us understand why members made the choices they did.
• Doesn't it seem like they don't want you to understand, but simply condemn?
• Were all these people simply wicked fanatics? Or, could they have been sincere people doing their best in a difficult situation, caught between many pressures and duties?

Additional information

• Practiced after the Manifesto—limited number of plural marriages were solemnized after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto of 1890 (Official Declaration 1). Some of these marriages were apparently sanctioned by some in positions of Church leadership. It is claimed that this demonstrates that the Manifesto was merely a political tactic, and that the "revelation" of the Manifesto was merely a cynical ploy. They also claim that Post-Manifesto marriages demonstrate the LDS Church's contempt for the civil law of the land. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critics' Comment: Today's church leaders assert that the mainstream Mormon church has nothing whatsoever to do with fundamentalist polygamists. There's no contradiction in the fact that a sitting apostle in the 1950s had a polygamous Father-in-law living in full fellowship in the church and was a temple worker, more than half a century after church leaders claimed to have abandoned polygamy???

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink should remember that we "can't pick our families."
• If an apostle's father-in-law in the 1950s is the best they can come up with to try to link "fundamentalist" groups to the Church, what does that say about the quality of the argument?
• Most "fundamentalists" have never been members of the LDS Church.
• The Church does not now preach or sanction the practice of polygamy. If MormonThink has any evidence proving otherwise, they ought to provide it.

FairMormon Response

1. REDIRECTThe Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today#Did Gordon B. Hinckley claim that polygamy was "not doctrinal" on Larry King Live?

Parley P. Pratt's marriage and murder

Summary: It is claimed that Parley P. Pratt's practice of polygamy was responsible for his murder, partly because he married a woman who hadn't been divorced from her first husband.

Jump to details:

• Question: Was Parley P. Pratt murdered because he stole another man's wife?
• Question: Was it normal not to obtain a formal civil divorce in 19th century America?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many LDS are under the impression that shortly before Joseph Smith was killed, he was put in jail unjustly by anti-Mormons using trumped-up charges. In reality, the circumstances surrounding Joseph's assassination was a result of the actions he took to prevent his being exposed as a polygamist.

Author's source(s)

• From the "neutral" site wikipedia (from June 2008)

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink needs to get their history straight.
• Joseph and Hyrum were brought to Carthage to answer charges regarding the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. Let us assume that they were completely in the wrong in ordering the paper's destruction--it was not something for which they would have been jailed, even if found guilty. (They had already been acquitted twice, once by an LDS judge and once by a non-LDS.)
• At most, Joseph and Hyrum would have been liable for financial damages to the owners of the press. They posted bail, and would have been tried in court when the circuit court judge next arrived. They were free to leave and go home.
• The "trumped up charges" were charges of treason, which were then lodged against Joseph and Hyrum once they had posted bail. These new charges were intended to keep them in custody, where they could be assassinated. (It is no coincidence that the leader of the Carthage Greys militia--the group which assassinated Joseph--was the justice of the peace who jailed them on the treason charge, without a hearing.)
• Notice the contradiction: MormonThink criticizes Joseph for hiding plural marriage, but then says Joseph was murdered because of plural marriage. So, if he would have announced to everyone that the Saints were teaching and practicing plural marriage, are we supposed to believe everything would have gone well? Does MormonThink approve of vigilante justice and mob rule?

Quotes to consider

• "The court business of the day was to hearthe charge of riot against Nauvoo's town officers [including Joseph and Hyrum]. The defendants were released on bail of $500 each and bound over to the next term of the circuit court. Before the hearing, however, another charge, this one for treason, was brought against Joseph and Hyrum. Not the government, but dissenter Augustine Spencer accused them of calling out the legion to resist the state militia. The Mormons could see the dissenters were determined to keep Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage on one pretext or other. [Illinois Governor] Ford considered the treason charge groundless since the city had had reason to fear a mob invasion, but he refused to intervene in a judicial proceeding. The justice of the peace, Robert Smith [captain of the Carthage Greys who would murder them], committed Joseph and Hyrum to prison without a hearing, claiming he did so for their safety." — Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 547.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Editor comment: The concept of a Heavenly Mother can be a bit strange for some people to accept but the idea of Heavenly Mothers (plural) is very unnerving. Logically, if God has multiple wives then although everyone has the same Father-in-Heaven, most people would have different 'Mothers-in-Heaven'. Perhaps that's one reason we're told not to pray to our Mother-in-Heaven as we wouldn't know which one.

FairMormon commentary

• Logically? When a child is in a room full of mothers and calls his own mother, wouldn't you think that she can hear that child and knows his or her voice? Do you think that she would be able to respond to him or her?
• This is the first time we've seen someone try to combine the concept of praying to a Heavenly Mother with the idea that God is a polygamist.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We have to wonder why an angel didn't appear to Emma to convince her that polygamy was commanded by God. The Bible talks of Mary being visited by the angel Gabriel. Mary's soon-to-be husband Joseph was going to put her away until he had a visit in a dream explaining the virgin birth. Wouldn't it make sense that Emma would have been given the same information from God as Joseph did about polygamy, so that Emma would have gone along and not fought Joseph as she did? This is another reason to think that polygamy may have originated with Joseph Smith rather than from God or an angel.

FairMormon commentary

• Are we to compare Mary's angelic visit to announce the upcoming birth of the savior of all mankind to Emma accepting polygamy? Really?
• It was certainly difficult for Emma, but how about those that were asked to be plural wives? They reported divine manifestations.
• Since Emma would later lie and say Joseph never taught plural marriage, it's hard to know what she did or didn't experience in relation to it.

Quotes to consider
There are at least two accounts in which Emma expresses her belief in plural marriage and Joseph's call as a prophet:

• Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [Smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophet’s wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it.^[6]
• Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet’s wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. “What I said I have got [to] repent of,” lamented Emma. “The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that[principle[;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it.”^[7]

And, what did Emma say about Joseph after all that had happened?: I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.^[8]

• MormonThink wants us to believe everything that Oliver Cowdery says about plural marriage if we accept what he says about his role as one of the three witnesses. So, shouldn't we believe Emma on this matter?
• Doesn't it seem that no matter what the evidence, MormonThink is determined to come to a "negative" verdict?

Additional information

• Divine manifestations to plural wives and families—Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
With the admission that these justifications for polygamy are simply not true, by such LDS leaders as apostle John A. Widtsoe and FAIR Chairman John Lynch, we must turn to the only possible remaining answer - God commanded the early saints to take multiple wives for some reason. But we can't think of any earthly reason for practicing polygamy. Why would God command this? Even if there were women that needed help, why would the men have to marry the women in order to help them. We certainly don't advocate marrying a homeless person to help them financially or otherwise. And why have polygamy at all since it could only be practiced by maybe 30% of its members?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  
• If you can't think of any earthly reason for practicing polygamy, then perhaps the reason was not earthly at all—perhaps God had His own reasons for commanding it.
• But, MormonThink is not thinking very hard if they cannot see some of the advantages that accrued to the early Church because of plural marriage.

Additional information

• Possible benefits of plural marriage to the early Church—We have little revealed knowledge about the purpose of plural marriage, but it did have some important sociologic and economic benefits to the early restored Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
And although polygamy was practiced somewhat in Old Testament times, it was more of a social custom and not a religious commandment....Yes, polygamy was practiced in the OT, but God never commanded it to be practiced. The model was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Jane and Sally .... God seems to have accepted their practicing it for cultural reasons.

FairMormon commentary

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Plural marriage

Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage	Purpose of plural marriage Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation Plural marriage in early Christianity Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon Plural marriage and the Bible
Introduction of plural marriage	Initiation of the practice of plural marriage 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership Divine manifestations to plural wives and families Plural marriage and the law
Questions about Joseph Smith and plural marriage	Initiation of the practice of plural marriage Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership Joseph Smith's marriages to young women Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him? Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage Polyandry Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage Marrying other men's wives? Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132 Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy? Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives? Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?
John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy	Bennett before Nauvoo Bennett and Prostitution Brothel at Nauvoo Rise and Fall of Bennett Sarah Pratt Nancy Rigdon Sidney Rigdon
Plural wives of Joseph Smith	Divine manifestations to plural wives and families Emma Smith Fanny Alger Louisa Beaman Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland Agnes Moulton Coolbrith Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee Esther Dutcher Hannah S. Ells Olive Grey Frost Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris Clarissa Reed Hancock Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde Vienna Jacques Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Almera Johnson Helen Mar Kimball Maria Lawrence Sarah Lawrence Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner Malissa Lott Sylvia Sessions Lyon Martha McBride Eliza Partridge Emily Partridge Rhoda Richards Ruth Vose Sayers Patty Bartlett Sessions Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman "Miss Smith" Mary Heron Snider Eliza R. Snow Lucy Walker Sarah Ann Whitney Nancy Maria Winchester Flora Ann Woodworth Fanny Young
Plural marriage in Utah	Difficulties with plural marriage Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage John Taylor's statements regarding polygamy Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah
End of plural marriage	The First Manifesto Official Declaration Number 1 Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today

With the authority of the Bible behind them, early Mormons argued for 'plural marriage,' and some Mormon fundamentalist sects continue to practice polygyny. They were and are right: if the Bible provides authoritative models, then a man should be allowed to have more than one wife, as did Abraham, Jacob, David, and other biblical heroes, with no hint of divine disapproval.

—Michael Coogan, God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (New York, N.Y.: Twelve, 2010), 78–79.

Was there no biblical mandate for plural marriage?

This claim is false; levirate marriage was mandated by the law of Moses

While sometimes forced to admit that some Old Testament figures practiced polygamy, some Christians insist that there was no biblical mandate or command to practice plural marriage.

This claim is false; levirate marriage was mandated by the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

Even if true, this claim is immaterial. God did not condemn the practice of plural marriage in the Bible. If it was everywhere and always forbidden, God could and would have done so. Early Christian authors understood this.

The practice of levirate marriage did not make any conditions on whether or not the brother-in-law was married

The details of this practice are outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-6, which the Sadducees quote in asking the question to Jesus. The practice of levirate marriage did not make any conditions on whether or not the brother-in-law was married. There was a way for the brother-in-law to avoid this marriage, through a ceremony called halitza, which was a mark of shame on the brother-in-law for refusing to continue his brother's name, thus declaring that his brother was irrevocably dead. This secondary option however, has become much more relevant to the modern practice of Judaism than it was to ancient Israel. Additionally, the practice makes no distinction to whether or not the brother was already married. It is the only instance in the Old Testament where polygamy was mandated under certain circumstances. Finally, the widow with no children, upon the death of her husband, was automatically considered to be betrothed, or engaged, to the next brother in the family of her now-deceased husband.

This practice was changed somewhat in Talmudic law where we find more than a hundred clarifications and expansions on the practice. Among these was a shift towards the practice of halitza being preferable to levirate marriage. This became a ban that was established by religious law in modern Israel in 1957. Because of this, there was an interesting case reported in 1998 in the Spring Newsletter of the International Council of Jewish Women. It describes the unusual case of a married woman, living in Israel, who had a single daughter. In 1991, the family was involved in a serious automobile accident, and the daughter died immediately. The husband died hours later. According to Jewish law, the woman (who was childless at the time of her husband's death) was immediately placed in the role of the childless widow. Before she could remarry, she needed to go through the halitza ceremony with the only living brother of her late husband, who lived in Paris. This case was of significance because the brother-in-law refused to perform the ceremony. At first the Jewish courts simply ordered the brother-in-law to either perform the ceremony, or to pay the woman a thousand dollars a month for maintenance. He refused to do either. It took the woman six years to get the brother-in-law to perform the ceremony, and he also ended up paying her thousands of dollars as ordered by the religious courts.

This practice was not just a custom, but an integral part of the religious law at the time of Jesus

This practice was not just a custom, but an integral part of the religious law at the time of Jesus. While the above story happened only recently, ancient Israel was just as fervent in their keeping the Law of Moses, even in cases such as this. While a hypothetical situation was proposed to Jesus, it was a hypothetical situation that could actually happen, and the statements provided by the authors do not represent correctly this practice.

Does the Bible forbid plural marriage?

The Bible does not forbid plural marriage

Some Christians claim that plural marriage has no Biblical precedents—they point to condemnation of King David and King Solomon as evidence that polygamy is always forbidden by God. Some claim that Abraham's polygamy "portrays his acceptance of plural marriage as a mark of disobedience to, and a lack of faith in, God." It is claimed that since the Bible didn't allow a man to marry two sisters, this proves that LDS plural marriage was "unbiblical" because some Mormons did so.

The Bible does not forbid plural marriage. In fact, many of the most noble Biblical figures (e.g., Abraham) had more than one wife. Furthermore, Biblical laws quoted by critics forbid kings from being led astray by plural spouses, or entering relationships not sanctioned by God's authority. However, the same Biblical laws provide guidelines for legitimate plural relationships.

It is true that David and Solomon were condemned for some of their marriage practices

This problem was mentioned in Deuteronomy:

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother...17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away... (Deuteronomy 17:15,17

Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children

Critics ignore the fact that only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children. (See Deuteronomy 21:15-17.) Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:

1. not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see 2 Samuel 12:8, Jacob 2꞉30, D&C 132꞉38-39);
2. that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God (1 Kings 11:3-4);
3. not take excessive numbers of wives (see Jacob 2꞉24).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (see 2 Samuel 12:1-27. Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

7 ¶ And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12:7-10)

Nathan here tells David that the Lord "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for it now? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier?

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord, as Deuteronomy cautioned

Solomon's problem is described:

1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love...

7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1 Kings 11:1-8

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

Abraham and other Biblical examples demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned

David and Solomon do not prove the critics' point, but in fact demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned (as in David's case certainly).

But, we need not rely on these examples only to demonstrate that plural marriage was practiced by righteous followers of God in the Bible. Other cases include:

• Abraham married Hagar (Genesis 16:3), Keturah (Genesis 25:1) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25:6).
• Jacob (Genesis 29:21-30, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9)
• Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13:8-12) and prosper in battle because of the Lord's blessing (2 Chronicles 13:16-18)
• Jehoiada, priest under king Joash had two wives (2 Chronicles 3:) and is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" (2 Chronicles 24:16).

and also possibly:

• Moses [married Zipporah (Exodus 2:22 and an "Ethiopian" (Cushite) woman Numbers 12:1 which may or may not be the same person.

The Law of Moses provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives

As noted above, Deuteronomy 21:15 provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in Exodus 21:10. Why did God not ban plural marriage through Moses if it is always an immoral act?

The Law of Moses did not allow plural marriages to two sisters

Latter-day Saint plural marriage did not rely on biblical authority or interpretation (though they used biblical parallels to explain and understand the command which they believed they had received from God via a modern prophet.)

Marrying two sisters was quite frequent, possibly because sisters had already learned to get along together, which made for more harmonious plural families. One researcher noted:

Marriage to the wife's sister, defined as incest only by Anglican canon law, is the only form of polygamous marriage of the [potentially 'incestuous] categories...that occurs in significant numbers.

The Saints did not claim to be restoring Mosaic plural marriage—they only used Moses' example as precedent for the fact that God could and had commanded plural marriage in the past. The specific structure, rules, and restrictions varied from time to time as guided by prophets.

What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?

The "works of Abraham" are fundamentally about obedience to God's laws, obedience to any commandment given, and willingness to sacrifice

D&C 132 tells Joseph and others to "do the works of Abraham." What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?

The "works of Abraham" are fundamentally about obedience to God's laws, obedience to any commandment given, and willingness to sacrifice. For Joseph and the early Saints, a prominent part of such works was plural marriage, but this was (in a sense) incidental—the great work was obedience to covenant and law; plural marriage was simply their burden and trial.

It is often casually assumed that "the works of Abraham" refer mainly to plural marriage

It is often casually assumed that "the works of Abraham" refer mainly to plural marriage. A consideration of both the phrase's orgins, and its use in D&C 132, may suggest that a broader meaning is intended.

The phrase has its origins in the gospel of John. Jesus rebuked unrighteous Jews, saying:

...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father (John 8:34-38).

Stung, the Jews replied, "Abraham is our father." Jesus answered:

If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham (John 8:39-40).

At its most basic level, "the works of Abraham" are to obey and serve God, and not be "the servant of sin"

Even before the abolition of plural marriage, leaders of the Church understood this, though many also used obedience to the command to practice plural marriage as a pre-eminent example.

Abraham plays a central role in D&C 132's justification of plural marriage

Yet, it is not simply as a polygamist that Abraham is appealed to:

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

Abraham received blessings because of revelation and obedience to covenant and commandment

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

The works of Abraham, we remember, were obedience and service to God. Joseph and others were to "enter into [God's] law," which has been explained earlier in the section as the law of sealing as part of the new and everlasting covenant (D&C 132꞉7; see here for a more extensive discussion of the new and everlasting covenant).

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

We must not confuse "the law" to which verse 34 refers with "the law" described in verse 7

We must not confuse "the law" to which verse 34 refers with "the law" described in verse 7: "The conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise...are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

"The law" which Sarah obeys or follows is later (v. 64-65) referred to as "the law of Sarah"—this law seems to imply that a man who will practice plural marriage must first give his wife the opportunity to approve and endorse the new wife. Thus, the rhetorical question and answer is not

Q: Why did Sarah do this?

A: Because plural marriage is "the law."

But, rather:

Q: Why did Sarah give the wife to Abraham, when he could have simply, by his culture's rules, taken another wife himself?

A: Because "the law" [of Sarah] requires a righteous man to give his wife a chance to approve, and not proceed unilaterally.

We here recall that this revelation was written to persuade Emma Smith to endorse plural marriage; this argument, then, is especially directed at her (see verses 51-56).

We note also that Abraham was not condemned because he was commanded and then acted

We note also that Abraham was not condemned—but not because plural marriage was "the law" and he practiced it, but because he was commanded and then acted. And, it was this fundamental obedience to any and every commandment that made Abraham great, as the next verse makes clear:

36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

If taking a plural wife was "the law," which Abraham was bound by, then this analogy makes little sense—for it is surely not a law to murder. Indeed, the Lord acknowledges that the "default setting" for the law is not to kill. But, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took a plural wife not because it was the law, but because he was commanded (just as Joseph had been):

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

Abraham kept "the law"—the sealing power and conditions detailed earlier. He, Isaac, and Jacob were justified because they "did the works of Abraham"—they did "none other things than that which they were commanded."

The Lord returns to Abraham later in the section:

49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.

50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

The same themes recur—Joseph has been obedient, and thus will join Abraham. He has sacrificed (as with Isaac, notably, rather than as with Hagar) in obedience.

Gregory L. Smith, M.D., "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Gregory L. Smith, M.D.,  FairMormon Papers, (2005)

The criticism that polygamy is irreligious appeals to western sensibilities which favor monogamy, and argues that polygamy is inconsistent with biblical Christianity or (ironically) the Book of Mormon itself.

This is a weak attack at best, and replies–devotional, apologetic, and scholarly–have been made to the claim. There is extensive, unequivocal evidence that polygamous relationships were condoned under various circumstances by biblical prophets, despite how uncomfortable this might make a modern Christian. Elder Orson Pratt was widely viewed as the victor in a three-day debate on this very point with Reverend John P. Newman, Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, in 1870.

Even were there no such precedents, LDS theology has no problem accepting and implementing novel commandments, since the Saints believe in continuing revelation. I will not belabor the matter here, since ample resources are available.

Click here to view the complete article

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 237, 244. ( Index of claims ) Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 305 (PB) ( Index of claims ) MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 245-246.( Index of claims ) Search for the Truth DVD (2007) Resources Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers

Notes

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph's plural marriages were not known until Joseph was caught with Fanny Alger. Oliver Cowdery referred to it as a 'dirty, nasty, filthy affair'. Now suppose for just a minute, that this really was an affair as reported by Brother Cowdery, an apostle and one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Why would Joseph make up the preposterous story that an angel with a sword commanded him to practice polygamy (before the sealing power was even restored no less)? Why, because he could. People believed him. They believed his earlier story about an angel, so why not another one? Perhaps the entire practice of polygamy by the saints was inspired by Joseph's efforts to cover up an affair? If he was truly in an affair, he would have a hard time justifying his adultery, and he may have lost many, many followers. But he came up with the only excuse that could be justified - God commanded him to. It was so successful that he continued to take more and more women as wives.

FairMormon commentary

•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  
• Yes if we imagine and "suppose" things, it becomes easy to come to any conclusion we want.
• Unfortunately for this theory, the evidence is quite clear that Joseph had had the plural marriage revelation (and was teaching at least some of the principles) by 1831--years before he married Fanny Alger (as, recall, both hostile and friendly sources reported).
• Besides, if Joseph was just trying to have easy sex, he picked the most complicated, difficult method of doing so. Why didn't he tell his followers that only he, the prophet, was commanded to make this huge sacrifice? It is very clear that those he taught were repulsed by the idea, and only accepted it with great difficulty after receiving revelation. Why did he risk putting them off or causing problems by pushing others to practice it?
• If this was what Joseph was after, why did he expose and alienate John C. Bennett, who was trying to do exactly what MormonThink claims Joseph wanted to do? Bennett had the scheme working well, and yet Joseph caused himself enormous trouble by exposing and then excommunicating Bennett.
• But, if you get to pick your own facts like MormonThink does, any story will do.
• MormonThink has now left the realm of evidence completely, and is letting their imagination soar. Anything goes.

Additional information

• Did Joseph have "lustful motives" for practicing polygamy?—Neutral observers have long understood that this attack is probably the weakest of them all. One might reasonably hold the opinion that Joseph was wrong, but in the face of the documentary evidence it is laughable to argue that he and his associates were insincere or that they were practicing their religion only for power and to satisfy carnal desires. Those who insist that “sex is the answer” reveal more about their own limited perspective than they do of the minds of the early Saints. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If polygamy was really sanctioned by our Heavenly Father and polygamy is an eternal principle expected to be practiced in the next life, then naturally the spirit should bear witness to this. So why doesn't the spirit make us all feel warm fuzzies inside when it comes to polygamy? We have rarely found members in the church, especially women, who readily accept this idea.

FairMormon commentary

•   "Warm fuzzies"  —A mocking term used by critics to describe "feeling the spirit."
  Why should we receive a spiritual manifestation about polygamy? We aren't required to practice it, and we're willing to bet that few people today would want to.
• There is no Church doctrine which says that plural marriage must be practiced in the next life. We do not know.
• Does it seem like MormonThink might be trying to make you worried that you will have to practice plural marriage in heaven?
• LDS author and former BYU Professor Valerie Hudson spoke powerfully against this idea. If this worries you, you should read it: here.
• Are we supposed to receive a spiritual manifestation about polygamy practiced in the past? Are we supposed to receive a witness of polygamy as it was practiced anciently?
• Those who did practice it reported that only revelation persuaded them to obey.
• It's not surprising that MormonThink's account of plural marriage doesn't make anyone feel good--it isn't true!
• And, what many members have believed about plural marriage often isn't true either. We need to learn more if we are troubled.
• But, does MormonThink seem like a source that's going to help us do that?

Quotes to consider

• MormonThink doesn't mention all the facts, distorts the historical record, and leaves out the most important parts. They want "sound bites" to condemn the Church, instead of doing the work it takes to understand why those members made the choices that they did.
• FAIR members are witnesses that we can be at peace about the difficulties that accompanied plural marriage if we hear the whole story.
• Our Heavenly Father can tell us whether Joseph Smith and his successors were true prophets or not, and whether plural marriage means that we should not trust them.
• Funny, MormonThink seems to think they can settle the question for you. Hopefully, you can now see how much they've hidden from you.

Additional information

• Divine manifestations to plural wives and families—Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"? No, they bore witness that only powerful revelatory experiences convinced them that the command was from God. (Link)

• Another member's experience with these issues is described here: Gregory L. Smith, "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Plural Marriage (*But Were Afraid to Ask)," FAIR Conference presentation (7 August 2009).

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
When we read such statements as these by the First Presidency of the Church, we have to wonder if polygamy, as practiced by the saints, came from God or from man: "Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, First Counselor to Brigham Young, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp 129-130.

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink rounds things off with a quote from a hostile newspaper reporter that is not found anywhere in the records of Heber C. Kimball's speeches.
• MormonThink doesn't tell us that the source they are quoting is hostile, or that the source it is quoting is hostile, and that the book (Lion of the Lord) was widely panned by LDS and non-LDS reviewers as one of the worst works of LDS history.
• Here's what a non-LDS reviewer said about Lion of the Lord:

The sources exploited by Professor Hirshson and his interpretation of them testify that The Lion of the Lord has failed to reach the flesh-and-blood Brigham Young, leaving us rather with a caricature of the man drawn from news accounts of the period; the founder of a new western empire is transformed into a paper lion….The Lion of the Lord provides precious little insight on the subject and leaves the reader to conclude that Professor Hirshson is inclined rather to perpetuate nineteenth-century myths than to search for an understanding

While space limitations preclude a full account of errors in historic fact, several should not go unmentioned….

Hirshson's indifference to accuracy is conspicuous….

The author's barely concealed antagonism to the Saints bleeds the cause of scholarship….

— Donald R. Moorman, "review of The Lion of the Lord," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 5 no. 1, 98-100. (non-LDS reviewer)

• This book even claims that Heber C. Kimball was illiterate—which he clearly was not, because we have many examples of his journals and letters. But, that's what you get when you trust anti-Mormon New York newspaper authors from the nineteenth century.
• There are many other scathing reviews of the book, from LDS believers, cultural Mormons, and non-LDS scholars.
• The quote attributed to Kimball is nowhere found, for example, in Signature Books' New Mormon Studies CD-ROM (1998), in any source. It is probably a fabrication or distortion by an anonymous newspaper author.
• So, when we read such statements as these from MormonThink--don't we have to wonder if their version of polygamy and its history can be trusted at all?

Additional information

• Heber C. Kimball says missionaries are "picking out the prettiest women"?—Heber C. Kimball said, "Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake." However, critics don't mention that Heber also said, "I wish more of our young men would take to themselves wives of the daughters of Zion and not wait for us old men to take them all; go-ahead upon the right principle young gentlemen and God bless you forever and ever and make you fruitful, that we may fill the mountains and then the earth with righteous inhabitants." (Link)

• Leaders worried missionaries take best plural wives—It is claimed that nineteenth century Church leaders worried that missionaries would "take all the best" convert women as plural wives before they got to Salt Lake. (Link)

== Notes ==

1. [note]  David R. Keller, "Where the Lost Boys Go," FAIR Blog (last accessed 9 May 2008).
2. [note]  Mosiah F. Hancock, Autobiography, MS 570, LDS Church Archives, 61–62; Todd Compton, "Fanny Alger Smith Custer: Mormonism's First Plural Wife?" Journal of Mormon History 22/1 (Spring 1996): 189–90.
3. [note]  Ann Eliza Young, Wife No. 19, or the Story of a Life in Bondage...(Hartford, Conn.: Custin, Gilman & Company, 1876), 66-67.
4. [note]  Ann Eliza Webb to Mary Bond, letter (4 May 1876) in Myron H. Bond Collection, P21, f11, RLDS Library-Archives; cited in Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 645. ( Index of claims )
5. [note]  There are two accounts by hostile sources, and neither blames Joseph's immoral actions for the attack: S.F. Whitney (brother of NK Whitney, a Reverend], in Arthur B. Demming (editor), Naked Truths About Mormonism, 1 (January 1888): 3-4; Amos S. Haydon, Early History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve (1876); John M. Rigdon, “Lecture Written by John M. Rigdon on the Early History of the Mormon Church,” 9; transcript from New Mormon Studies CD-ROM, Smith Research Associates, 1998.
6. [note]  Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 261. ( Index of claims )
7. [note]  Emma Smith to Maria Jane Johnston, cited in Wendy C. Top "'A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart' – Emma Hale Smith," in Heroines of the Restoration, edited by Barbara B. Smith and Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 17–34.; quoting Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 161.
8. [note]  Mary Audentia Smith Anderson (editor), "Memoirs of Joseph Smith III (1832–1914)," The Saints Herald (2 April 1935): 431–434.
9. [note]  This information is available in the article cited by MormonThink above. Gregory L. Smith, "George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy (A review of "Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage" by: George D. Smith)," FARMS Review 20/2 (2008): 37–123. off-site wiki
10. [note]  Steven Pratt, "Eleanor Mclean and the Murder of Parley P. Pratt," Brigham Young University Studies 15 no. 2 (Winter 1975), 226.