Truth vs. Error: Revisiting the Question of Polygamy

 

Truth vs. Error: Revisiting the Question of Polygamy

 

 

 

Polygamy is an integral part of the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It has been the standard approach that Joseph Smith was the author of polygamy. Up until the recent past, that is, when some questions arose as to who the principle of polygamy originated with. Many have concluded that Brigham and not Joseph was the one to introduce polygamy into the church. And some have gone as far as to conclude, that Joseph had nothing to do with plural marriage altogether.

 

However, denying Joseph’s involvement in plural marriage does not help us get to the Truth, but makes the pendulum swing to the other side of the spectrum, missing the proverbial golden middle. In a heated debate of truth-seekers, it is easy to become overzealous and let Error, not Truth, shine in the limelight.

 

Reconciling the barrage of facts and quotes that contradict each other is a maddening task, since all of us are so removed in time from the events in question.  And, in addition, many of our sources, including scripture, have been tampered with.  My purpose here is not to provide historical or factual evidence “proving” something, as others have done elsewhere. Only the Spirit proves…But rather to draw attention to some underlying principles of discerning Truth that could also shed some light on the practice of plural marriage.                          

 

                                                                  

Making it Neutral

 

‘Polygamy’ as a term has become extremely negatively charged and accusatory. Assigning a negative moral value to this practice for us, who have inherited a monogamous mentality and paradigm, is as effortless as driving on the "proper" side of the road. Of course, what side that is varies, depending on what part of the world we live in.

In the attempt to “exonerate” Joseph from being associated with polygamy, which we have thus “condemned” as an “evil practice”, we miss the mark, by erasing history. Sensing that Joseph’s heart and intentions were pure, we try to reconcile the best we can his integrity, on the one hand, and his indisputable involvement with multiple women, on the other. A witness of him being a man of God, a seer and prophet, creates enough of a cognitive dissonance for us to mentally divorce him from polygamy as ‘perceived wickedness’.

 

Perhaps taking on a more neutral attitude will help us get to the bottom of the issue faster than negatively charged preconceived notions.  This way we are less likely to overcorrect in our pursuit of Truth.  And facts can come before us as they were, not as we wish for them to be, generously and perhaps unknowingly applying ‘historical disinfectant’.

 

 

It appears that the Lord has sanctioned the practice of polygamy at different times and perhaps for reasons, which may not be clear to us at this time:

 

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. (D&C132:38)

In a nonchalant manner the Lord states that plural marriage has been an acceptable to Him practice and there was nothing sinful about it, when it was sanctioned by Him.

 

Received vs. Taken

 

 

In our culture, when someone has prepared themselves to receive a driver’s license, we have no problem with giving them the keys to a vehicle. However, when a person has not qualified for driving privileges, an attempt to drive is recognized as a serious violation. Thus, the same action can be viewed either as authorized and sanctioned, or dangerous and illegal. The same principle appears to apply to polygamy. With that in mind let’s have a look at some scriptural examples.

 

In the Book of Mormon Jacob describes a time, when some of the Nephites “began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines” (Jacob 1:15, emphasis added). In addition, as we see, they become prideful and covetous, as “they also began to search much gold and silver”. Acquiring more wives went right along with accumulating more wealth.  Human lives became little more than property. Perhaps the “wickedness” of the practice was not in the plurality of spouses, but the hardness of hearts and indulgence with which it was done, in the willful unauthorized taking. (Jacob 1:15-16)

 

This explains why the very same practice of having multiple wives and concubines, as mentioned above, is not condemned, but justified in the Doctrine and Covenants:

 

           David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife (D&C 132:39).

 

 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… (D&C132:37)

Looking at Joseph Smith’s life and experience we see a similar precedent. He discouraged many from experimenting with plural wives (Rough Stone Rolling, 326) and was ready to take many, including Brigham Young, to trial upon discovering their involvement in polygamous practices.[1]   

Is it any wonder then, that when facing predominantly “non-drivers” in his congregations Joseph spoke out against polygamy? To him it was very clear that some gifts can only be received, not taken, like cookies out of a cookie jar. And the Lord alone is the Giver. Joseph’s own words sum it up: “Blessings and enjoyments taken arbitrarily without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end…” (Rough Stone Rolling, 442)

 

Relative vs. Absolute

 

 

In the world where the adversary is king, it is common for a lie to be sandwiched in between two truths to make ‘a palatable’ meal.  And because we respond to Truth, we sometimes overlook the lie, mistaking the past-expiration ‘lunchmeat’ of deceit, for a piece of lettuce.

Truth is always more nuanced and delicate then we wish it were. Instead of a pre-sliced and shelf stable loaf, it’s more like an artisan sourdough creation, carefully cultured, kneaded only as needed and finally baked in the sturdy womb of a Dutch oven, perfectly crusty and deliciously irresistible. 

   

As humans we have a propensity to look for sturdy absolutes to lean on (Proverbs 3:5-6). We are quick to jump on the “thou shall nots”, casting aside the “excepts”, because it’s easier to see the stop signs than to figure out the ‘yields’ and ‘the right of ways.’ 

 

 

As Latter-Day Saints we are drowning in controversial reports, documents and evidences concerning Joseph and polygamy. Statements from Joseph and Emma, eyewitnesses and historians that are in direct opposition have come to the forefront of our attention. Was Emma not truthful in her testimony? Did Joseph lie about polygamy? Or was he saying the truth, because what he was restoring was markedly different from the practice of polygamy as it was known at the time?

.

Whatever the answer, it is difficult for us to conceive of a prophet capable of lying.  Especially taken out of context and circumstance. Yet when Abraham lied to protect the virtue of his wife Sarah, we see no wrong, because the circumstance justifies the action. When Nephi lies to Zoram, we understand that it is out of necessity. Yet the thought of Joseph being commanded to lie in order to protect reputations and possibly lives, is hard for us to fathom because we don’t see the circumstances surrounding the doctrine he was attempting to restore. Nor do we have any evidence of him being commanded to do so.

 

For Joseph it was clear that God’s command and revelation supersede any previously given instruction. According to him, when it comes to God’s commandments, “that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another” (Rough Stone Rolling, 441). “God said thou shalt not kill, - at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy” (Ibid, 441).    

 

 In section 121 the Lord is warning us, prone to black and white distinctions, of inadvertently seeing folly where there is none:

 

Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done

that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. 

 

Joseph’s name has truly been known “for good and evil”. May we withhold our judgment of him, since we do not know what he was commanded to do and what he was not.

Counterfeits 

 

 

 

Counterfeits follow Truth like a shadow, fulfilling the universal law of opposition in all things. The presence of counterfeits definitely complicates one’s access to the Truth. But such presence doesn’t deny the existence of the “authentic original” any more than the presence of false Christs denies the existence of the Redeemer!!!

 

Brigham’s polygamy, lopsided in its patriarchal dominance, became such a counterfeit.No wonder so many have struggled to embrace it. But the craftiness of the adversary does not end there. Modern-day counterfeits of the doctrine Joseph was attempting to restore are plentiful and better disguised than the straightforward ‘eyesore to feminism’ created by Brigham. It is our job not to throw the baby out with the bath water of counterfeits, when the Lord yet again begins to reveal new to us doctrine and attempts to restore it.

 

 

 

What was Joseph restoring then? 

 

 

 

The Lord entrusted into Joseph’s hands the restoration of all things (D&C 132:40) It’s quite fitting that in Hebrew the name Joseph יוֹסֵף means “he will add”.  And added he has…

How can you tell what kind of sand castle one was going to build if they got interrupted halfway? And whatever structure was there for a brief moment, got washed away by the tide of time? It’s nearly impossible to discern. We can, however, identify a few underlying principles of plural marriage as instituted by Joseph. 

 

1.     A revelation and a commandment.

It is clear that for Joseph plural marriage was a law and commandment and a very difficult one to keep. It was a matter of obedience to God, not a folly or a whim, but a spiritual principle (Rough Stone Rolling, 326, 437). Visited by an angel with a sword, he was told to either obey, or be slain (Ibid, 438).

 

2.     Agency.  

It is no surprise that the crux of the Lord’s idea of plural marriage is agency.

In his proposals to women Joseph was accepted, but also turned down. The principle goes back to the often-overlooked Law of Sarah, wherein Abraham is willing to marry Hagar, Hagar is willing to be a second wife and Sarah willingly consented to Hagar being married to her husband (D&C 132). Everyone’s agency is honored.

 

3.     Sacred/selective

It is telling that Joseph was not sharing this doctrine from the pulpit, unlike Brigham in 1852, but extending the invitation to receive a personal witness of it privately to those chosen by the Lord (RSR, 440.) There is a certain amount of secrecy surrounding the principle, which quite frankly often goes along with all things sacred.

4.     Gender balanced

There is a clear gender balance about Joseph’s plural marriage. He was not                      creating a harem-like conglomeration of women around himself, joining them to                his household. It was common for him to be sealed to women that were already                married. Thus, in this paradigm the principle of plurality applied to both men                     and women.

 

5.     Impersonal

Joseph’s marriages did not constitute an appropriation of wives. The number of marriages alone did not allow for anything other than an “impersonal bond” with the women he was sealed to. (RSR, 440). Thus, the purpose was not a warm, close relationship or romantic companionship. It was Joseph’s understanding that plural marriage had the millennial purpose on the eve of the Savior’s second coming (Rough Stone Rolling, 326).

 

 

In our search for truth, we have come full circle. Seeking for answers directly from God, who “upbraideth not” is at our very foundation (Jacob 1:5). Yet we have become reliant on other means and sources to deliver it to us, convince us. We forget that factual evidence, often brought to us by the very best among seekers of truth, is still very much limited and ‘arm of flesh of based’.

Truth defies reason, it shatters cultural norms and paradigms. To our horror it walks away from moral absolutes, leaving us on what feels like earthquake-prone ground. It slips away from its own shadow of counterfeits and unlike Peter Pan revels in the accomplishment. Always crowded by lies, it is quite nuanced and delicate, demanding just the right conditions for its cultured existence.

 

 It is because of Truth’s very nature that discernment and personal revelation are the only subjects the Lord offers in his year-round curriculum of discipleship. Nothing else will suffice. Only the Spirit can teach effectively and provide the ‘proof’ we seek. And to those that learn to confidently rely on the witness of the Holy Ghost the Lord has promised to reveal knowledge “that has not been revealed since the world was until now” (D&C121:26). In other words, when and if we are ready, He will add. and a lie caricature reversing the truth

---

[1] https://restorationbookstore.org/pages/joseph-smith-fought-polygamy-online)