Avoiding Testimony Casualties Over Plural Marriage
FEATURES
- The Part of Christ’s Sacrifice You Haven’t Considered by H. Wallace Goddard
- No Simple Slogans for Israel and Gaza by Gale Boyd
- Inside Out Joy by Kathy K. Clayton
- What Archeology Has Taught Us About Lehi’s Jerusalem by Daniel C. Peterson
- Come Follow Me Book of Mormon Podcast #13: “He Shall Rise … with Healing in His Wings,” Easter by Scot and Maurine Proctor
- The First Presidency Announces New Voice for ‘Music & the Spoken Word’ by Meridian Church Newswire
- A Special Edition Podcast: A Message of Faith and Hope from the Proctors by Scot and Maurine Proctor
- Relearning Touch After Betrayal by Geoff Steurer, MS, LMFT
- Come Listen to a Prophet’s Voice by Carolyn Nicolaysen
- Watch First Video From Final Season of “Book of Mormon Videos” by Larry Richman
-
What Archeology Has Taught Us About Lehi’s Jerusalem
-
Kevin Bacon Accepts Invitation to Payson High School Prom
-
Four Contacts to Make After the Mission
-
How the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon Is Similar to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
-
5 Tips for Writing about Friendship
-
‘Mistakes do not disqualify us,’ Elder Uchtdorf says in new video
By Church News -
Inside Out Joy
Comments | Return to Story
DanniJanuary 20, 2015
"Many people with questions are already on the margins of LDS Culture: feminists, intellectuals, single women, and those who lean liberal in their politics often lack the type of support network that other Mormons enjoy. They already have trouble feeling like they don’t belong in the Church." As a single female who considers herself both a feminist and an intellectual, I must take issue with the above statement. Until I read the above statement, I had never felt I had reason to feel marginal. What a surprise to hear that Meridian Magazine feels that I might be! I have been a feminist since Dallin Oaks asked Eloise Bell to give a talk on feminism at BYU back in 1975. See: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/4924/4574 We, the students of BYU, were being strongly encouraged to identify ourselves as feminists. In light of this encouragement, I have always felt that the members of the Church who did not identify themselves as feminists were the marginal members. They were obviously ill informed about the teachings of our leaders and were following the traditions of the fathers, which the Doctrine and Covenants warned us clearly leads to sin. And why would being an intellectual, someone who actually studies the Gospel, Church history or some other aspect of our beliefs or culture be considered marginal? I guess B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith were marginal members of the Church since both were definitely intellectuals. As far as being a single member making me marginal, I did not feel so until I was removed from my single's ward and placed in a family ward after I passed the upper age limit. The members of the single's ward never made me feel that my contribution to the building of Zion was marginal. Some of the family ward members have done exactly that. As one of my friends put it, "The single's ward was the only place in the Church where I was not a single, but just a member of the Church." I choose not to list my political belief label but I live in an area of the Church where the majority of the members are politically liberal, very liberal. Is your experience so limited that you do not know that these places exist and that people still manage to believe in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the truthfulness of the Gospel? The marginal, as far as numbers go, members here are the conservatives! The truth of the matter is that the married, non-intellectual members of the Church, both male and female, and of any political persuasion, are frequently the true marginal members. Some have no idea how anyone outside their narrow life experience thinks. Sometimes I believe they are frightened to find out for fear their beliefs might actually have to be defended and they will discover they possess no rational reasons to back up their beliefs because they are too intellectually lazy to read and too spiritually lazy to seek actual testimony. But if they herd together like sheep, they will be required to do neither. They are not marginal because they form a small percentage of their congregation; they are marginal because they put their political loyalties and their prejudices above their commitments to follow Christ. That is my definition of a Church member who is marginal.
RonnieJanuary 17, 2015
I do not wish to be disrespectful to Joseph Smith or any of the people who practiced polygamy. I hate that this has been almost a forbidden topic for my entire life and only now are we discussing it more openly. And that requires the anonymity of the Internet so that we are not gossiped about at Church or called in for the Priesthood interview. The women I know hate even the thought of polygamy. Many of the married women are frightened that they might die before their husbands and find themselves stuck in polygamous unions in the next life because their husbands remarried after they die. A former bishop's wife went so far as to announce in the single's ward that if she died she did not want any of the single women to think she would approve of one of them being sealed to her husband as a second wife. The single women do not want to be in polygamous unions in the next life. They feel people are patronizing them when they say that they will feel differently about the matter and wouldn't it be wonderful to be sealed to some great man even if you had to share him. No, it would not be great. It would not be close to the happiness they have waited for. The love they want to give and share requires an exclusive commitment to them. Without it they cannot love fully. And why do we tell people they will feel differently about things in the next life while we also tell them they need to change in this life because if they don't they will feel the same way after they die. Double speak to me! I feel the Church has done a great disservice to its women by making this a forbidden topic of conversation, whispered quietly among the women for so many years. I even watched a friend's daughter go into deep depression when her divorced father was married in the temple to a second wife with no sealing cancellation for his first wife. The first wife had hoped he and she could be together in the next life because she still loved him. He told his children it would be okay, he was sealed to both of the wives. This prompted the first wife to tell her children that she was not interested in some eternal polygamous union and their eternal family was no longer possible. How has this helped anyone to believe in eternal marriage or love or loyalty? It has just caused bitterness and great sorrow. The women do not feel safe within the Church where a man can have more than one woman sealed to him. They feel cheated, like they are sacrificing to get a reward they do not want.
Mark PyperJanuary 13, 2015
Here we go. We are agree that this is life eternal, to know the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent. We need to get to know Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the operation of the Holy Ghost. In fact, it is undisputed that the only way to know truth is by and through the Holy Ghost. So, who is this Heavenly Father and why does He do the things that He does. One only need to read the Old Testament to learn that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father are passionate individuals. Based upon the command of the Lord, entire villages were wiped out and men, women and their children were killed. Who among us wants to attempt to justify away the killing of these children? I choose to defer to the Holy Ghost. Abraham took his son and was inches away from slaying him with a knife. Who among us wants to justify this event based upon modern day sensibilities? I choose to defer to the Holy Ghost for instruction. As a great, great, great grandson of a polygamist, I choose not to judge anyway but rather to acknowledge the great blessing that I have not been called to practice polygamy. If any angel of the Lord appeared to me and demanded that I practice polygamy at the point of a sword, I will have an interesting decision to make. No doubt, I will make it will the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith said the main difference between the LDS Church and the Christian world at large is that the LDS Church has the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. Through the Holy Ghost, all knowledge and power is obtained. So, I defer to the Holy Ghost who tells me that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and that Thomas S. Monson is a living prophet on the earth today. These sensational issues to many will sort themselves out. Stated another way, if the Holy Ghost has manifested the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to you as well as the calling the prophet Joseph Smith ----- we as a people need to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt and honor him as the prophet of the restoration who intentionally redirected his horse back to Carthage where he knew his blood would be shed to seal his life's testimony. A scoundrel would have headed west, and galloped the whole way. So, chin up members. Focus on what matters. Follow the Holy Ghost who may be nudging you at this moment.
NataliaJanuary 13, 2015
I don't think anyone is denying that they knew about polygamy. What was blurry for a lot of people was Joseph's practice of it. Do you ever see that in a Sunday School manual/
M. SnertJanuary 13, 2015
Is it just me, or does the third paragraph of the article seem to be directly at odds with d&c 132?
ClintJanuary 13, 2015
How, in Mormon theology, could Helen's decision have secured or even contributed to the salvation of her parents and siblings? Sealing to spouse, in Mormon theology, assures salvation. Second-hand sealing through multiple levels of child-parent relationships does not.
KBJanuary 13, 2015
I do not believe that anything could torture the heart, mind, spirit, and soul of a woman more than the practice of plural marriage. Plural marriage is infinitely more offensive and abusive than adultery. At least in adultery - the sin is admitted. In plural marriage, the man attempts to "legalize" adultery and call it a "righteous" act. The fact is, he is dis-loyal - permanently and eternally disloyal - which utterly destroys, degrades, shames, de-values, humiliates, and robs the first wife of all of her dignity - FOREVER! Plural marriage destroys everything that was once sacred, special, and even holy between a man and a woman....and it injures the first wife every second of every day for all eternity. If plural marriage is a true principle, then God must not love women...and there is no heaven for women - not even righteous women. If plural marriage is practiced in the next life, then the plan of happiness must all be a big fat lie. You can't have it both ways men. No emotional healthy and sane woman could ever be happy - with her husband off being intimate with other women - even if they were virgins (like that would even matter) and even if there was no sex involved - it would NOT matter - it would still be an act of disloyalty, it would still be abusive and torturous to the heart, mind a spirit of a righteous woman.
JeremiahJanuary 13, 2015
While the idea of what sealing was and who got sealed to whom and for what reasons was certainly an evolving matter, the church's own essay state that they were marriages. https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng Why would they state that they were marriages if they were only sealings? My biggest issue with plural marriage is the heavy handed obfuscation that the essay employs. Why say Helen was several months before her 15th birthday? I feel like when the members need simple clarification from thier inspired leaders they get get double speak from the PR department. It's very frustrating.
Sunny ReyJanuary 13, 2015
l had hoped this article would clear up some of the questions l have recently been exposed to concerning Joseph Smiths 'affairs' You say (whoever you are?) there is all this information about unfavorable church activities. Where might this information be? l can find all kinds of negative remarks on YouTube which seem to have reliable backing. Where do l go to find reliable refutations? Yes l can receive confirmation for my own spiritual acceptance but that doesnt help me explain the seemingly hidden agendas of church history. l have never had a problem with polygamy (marriage to take care of a man to woman ratio, l have never heard it was to give all the women in heaven a spouse) but a prophet who seems to get pleasure from accosting young women? lf that impression is out there how do l justify my 'blind faith'? The sources that show the reasons why faithful men like Sydney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery left the church due to JS's indiscretions seem real and tho may be slanted--how are we to know, if it is not directly addressed by our authorities? l have not checked your reference, which l will but l for one think these questions should be openly discussed as freely as why l 'must needs have charity'
Amanda PsuikJanuary 10, 2015
There needs to be a balance of reasonable and faith-filled information available out there to balance the eager tide of half-truth. Thankfully, we have so many more resources available right now to build on our faith even while learning about things like plural marriage. josephsmithspolygamy.org is a great one. And, believe it or not, there are a few women finally stepping up to defend the LDS theology of plural marriage as something that is not as repugnant as our guts once told us. There is a beauty behind it, just as in every other part of God's plan for both men and women. For more information please visit thewonderwomen.squarespace.com where a current series of articles (by women) is underway endeavoring to show how plural marriage was/will be a principle "because of, about, and FOR women."
Gary RawlingsJanuary 9, 2015
It was a commandment from God that he introduce polygamy. After several years of trying to avoid the issue, the Lord told Joseph to start practicing it "or be removed from your calling." Would we disinherit ourselves from the Great Blessings of Abraham because he was called to practice it in ancient times?
CateJanuary 9, 2015
Here is my issue. It's not that the church praticed polygamy. Of course I knew about that. Everyone does. It's not even that Joseph practiced it. For me, my struggle with this is that Emma didn't always know about it. This article makes it sound like, to her, Joseph was sealing women to him and Emma as their children. Why only women? Why not men then? This article makes it sound like it was only through women being sealed to Joseph and Emma that their entire families would be saved. Joseph was performing at least hundreds of sealings in the end of his life for families. Why can these women not be sealed to their own families to he saved? This just confuses me. It doesn't bother me that Joseph practiced polygamy, but it does that it seems like there was so very much amount of dishonesty surrounding this part of his life. I'm just so confused about how the meaning of polygamy changed so quickly. Brigham Young was very clear about what polygamy meant, he learned about it from Joseph, didn't he? Anyways, I do love your part about helping those who have struggles and questions. Thanks for that!
RobynJanuary 8, 2015
I am so thankful for some excellent seminary teachers during high school, years and years back. So many of these "shocking things" were taught and discussed with reverence and love for our Joseph that they are non-issues for me. I have empathy for Joseph and his companions who were doing their best to bring the Kingdom of God back to this earth after centuries of darkness reigned. Perhaps their execution of action wasn't perfect in dealing with all this new knowledge but I believe they were sincere in trying to obey God's commandments. This was their test; do we have the courage to meet ours?
Brother XJanuary 8, 2015
Joan: You are not only wanted, but NEEDED. I need folks like you to sit next to me in Sunday School and Sacrament meeting. I don't know you, but I love you and know the pain of not feeling like I belong in my ward. Please know that you are needed. You have perspectives that will reach people in ways that others can not.
Brother XJanuary 8, 2015
WI_Member: YourAnd question about anonymity is a good one. I am a graduate student, and this coming up as the first name on Google won't help me in my career. Frankly, BYU might not love it either, which is a sad statement to be explored at a later time. As for being sealed to Emma AND Joseph, you'll have to look at Samuel Brown and Jonathan Stapley's work on sealing/early temple theology. They describe the relationships with eloquence and in the historical sources. TJ: Where did HMK say that? And there's no conclusive evidence that the relationship was sexual, but I personally find it highly unlikely. The context it was introduced in was a dynastic type of sealing. Spencer Fluhman's article treats this better than I can in a comment, and is available from BYU's RSC. I cite it above. Joseph never had his children sealed to him, nor was anyone sealed to him "as a child" while he was alive. That's well documented. As for JMJ, you raise a good point. However, JMJ's rememberance comes more than 60 years after the fact and her sealing as a daughter makes little sense in the context of the theology during JS's life. I touch on this in my MA thesis. It's more likely that she was sealed as a wife, a non-sexual sealing partner meant to expand JS and ES's household. Emma would have approved because interracial sex was so tabboo it doesn't make sense that JS would have attempted to have that sort of relationship with her. I think it's obvious that Emma didn't know about the sealings. Which has its own complications. I'm not seeking to excuse it. There were many sealings because JS seemed to have felt compelled to do it. I don't have an answer other than that. There were at least 8 women who had sexual relationship with JS, according to sources. That's about 1/3 of all women sealed to him.
Brother XJanuary 8, 2015
Nadine: People often have their doubts furthered because of unrealistic expectations of the Church, not because of the actual information. We can and must do better to keep people in the Kingdom. We can do that through better teaching, but also through wrapping our arms around people that struggle rather than telling them that there's something wrong with them. There may be, but that doesn't help them in the moment. They need LOVE. Dan: Thank you!
JoanJanuary 8, 2015
I don't believe that God commanded what Joseph did. Just like I don't believe anything that Brigham said about monogamy being a diabolical plot against God's true order of marriage. That's my personal conclusion that I have felt the Spirit ratify. Is there a place for me in the church? I don't really want to be "listened to" and "understood" unless my testimony carries the same weight as anyone else's.
TJJanuary 7, 2015
While I agree with many of the points made by the author, I still have issues with some of the things I have read. Helen Mar Kimball said she would never have married Joseph if she had known it was anything other than a ceremony. What did she mean by this unless it was sexual? And Joseph and Emma obviously had an understanding of the difference between being sealed to someone as their child or as their wife. Emma tried to convince Jane Manning James to be sealed to her and Joseph as their daughter. Neither she nor Joseph suggested Jane be sealed to him as his wife in order to secure Jane's eternal salvation. If the sealing was to guarantee the eternal salvation of the descendants, why did Joseph not have the young women living in his home sealed as daughters to him and Emma and not as wives? Why did he send a note to two of these sealed wives to visit him when he was hiding outside Nauvoo, but only if Emma was not coming that night? Why were so many of the sealings hidden from Emma, so that she felt betrayed when she discovered them? And to pretend that Joseph did not have sex with at least some of these women, as some writers have said, is ridiculous. In the testimonies gathered from these women years later in order to prove that Joseph Smith had established polygamy in the Church, not Brigham Young, many women sealed to Joseph were very clear that they were full wives, with all that implied, not wives in name only.
WI_MemberJanuary 7, 2015
Are you saying that the women sealed/married to Joseph were sealed to Emma as well? Wouldn't that require Emma's consent or knowledge? In many cases, Joseph concealed what he was doing from her. I'm pretty sure that Doctrine & Covenants 132 doesn't say anything about additional wives being sealed to the first wife. Could you please provide some documentation for that claim? If we're entering a state of greater openness about discussing 'sensitive' issues in church history, why the need to withhold the author's name?
DanJanuary 7, 2015
This may be the best treatment of this subject I have ever read. Thank you for publishing this.
Nadine AndertonJanuary 7, 2015
To me, this is a non-issue. I had several ancestors, who had plural marriages (several with three wives, and in each I was descended from the 2nd wife). Maybe that's why I just always knew about and accepted it. I accept that it isn't appropriate today, but I know that it was a commandment from God at the time and am not ashamed at all. My first reaction to this article and the others like it was that I couldn't imagine anyone not knowing that part of our history, but then I remembered that church membership was less than 2 million when I was a teen and has grown so much since. Still, having a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel is an individual responsibility, and faith is the first principle. If you hear something that is new to you, pray about it to gain a testimony about it. Don't listen to rumor, study it out from church historical resources. This isn't something that is hidden. As far as age, Renaissance Nerd is right, marriages occurred at a much younger age then than now. Never judge by the present but by the prevailing customs of the times in which events or practices occurred. If you are shaken to the point of considering leaving the church, maybe you were never truly converted and don't understand the doctrine of faith?
Brett AllenJanuary 7, 2015
Is everything a crisis of faith now? When do we gain real testimonies? Quit pretending that you've never heard of polygamy, quit using the failings of others as an excuse to sin, read your scriptures, say your prayers, and ask for the courage and perseverance that is needed not to just stay true to the gospel, but to endure successfully to the end of mortality.
Ben JonesJanuary 7, 2015
The first question my mother asked me after I joined the LDS Church in 1982 was, "Didn't Joseph Smith introduce polygamy because of lust?" I replied, "There are much easier ways of satisfying lust than taking on the responsibility of multiple wives and their children." She responded, "Oh yeah, you're right" and never brought up the subject of polygamy after that.
Renaissance NerdJanuary 7, 2015
I have always found it astonishing that any Mormon would not know about the history of polygamy, even though some in my own family have fallen away over it. How could you not know? About 9 in 10 questions non-members have ever asked me were about polygamy. I originally learned about it at the age of 13 so I could answer the questions of some non-LDS friends. This 'news' is old news. However I finally realized that not everybody is comfortable talking to non-members about...well, anything. Many members of the Church hide their membership--not necessarily intentionally, but everybody who knows me knows I'm a Mormon. I've never been shy about it, and will talk to anybody about their questions without the slightest hesitation. I would love to count that as a virtue, but it's not; it's more akin to a native penchant, which I always did without ever thinking about it. For those who have never been missionaries, even part-time missionaries, and who have only rarely spoken about religion with acquaintances, it does make sense to me that they wouldn't know about areas that are not thoroughly covered in their Sunday School classes. Yet I don't approve; depending so completely on others for knowledge is completely incomprehensible to me. I suppose most Mormons haven't read all the anti-Mormon stuff I have, and that's fine, but D&C 9 makes it pretty plain that you have to study it out for yourself. I wonder how many of those to whom this is all shocking ever bothered to really seek. Now that polygamy is on the verge of being legal, one has to wonder how that will affect these opinions. The anything goes morality that is slowly conquering traditional morality can hardly object, and Bible Churches can't really object either since it's plainly approved of in the Bible. And as far as the age issue goes, only the extremely historically ignorant can consider that a negative. It was normal well into last century; it is a peculiarly bourgeois idea that women should be older than eighteen before they married. Girls of the peasantry, yeomanry, gentry and nobility all got married earlier with few exceptions. Eighteen was practically old maid territory up until the late 19th century when it began to change and town-based middle class mores moved towards dominance. 'Extremely historically ignorant.' Sigh. I just described 95% of America, but Mormons don't have that excuse. 'The Glory of God is Intelligence.' Learn, baby, learn!
AngelaJanuary 7, 2015
When I joined the Church almost 40 years ago there were still prominent members in Utah who were, or their parents were, the offspring of plural marriages. The issue was, as a result, far more readily talked about and understood. With the passage of time, other topics have taken prominence within the Church and polygamy has taken something of a backseat. Consequently there is a generation growing up who know little about it and don't know where to go for information. I was never bothered about plural marriage, but this article has given me a different perspective on a difficult question. As most Church members don't have access to the archives and libraries where we could learn more about it, more articles like this are very necessary.
Meg StoutJanuary 7, 2015
As one whose testimony underwent damage in the late 1970s due to learning about polygamy, I resonate with what you are saying here. However I would also challenge those who are disenchanted regarding this "news" about polygamy to react in some way other than throwing away the gospel. The great news is that modern seekers can more easily find faithful discussion of polygamy, discussion and analysis that weren't available to me as a wounded teenager in the 1970s.
ADD A COMMENT