Moral, Scriptural, and Theological Questions About Plural Marriage

Polygamy Sandbox > Moral, Scriptural, and Theological Questions About Plural Marriage

Moral, Scriptural, and Theological Questions About Plural Marriage

Summary: There are several moral and theological questions that surround plural marriage. This page aims to gather all of these questions and respond to them.

---

Is plural marriage required for exaltation?

Critics sometimes argue that early Latter-day Saint leaders taught plural marriage was required for exaltation and that, therefore, it must still be necessary today. A careful reading of scripture, historical context, and modern prophetic teaching, however, shows that plural marriage is not a requirement for exaltation.

The Church has no position that plural marriage will be reinstated

Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine that plural marriage would resume in the Millennium. However, Mormon Doctrine was not an official publication of the Church, and his opinion does not constitute binding doctrine.

When asked whether polygamy is “gone forever,” the Church’s official newsroom responded:

 :“We only know what the Lord has revealed through His prophets, that plural marriage has been stopped in the Church. Anything else is speculative and unwarranted.”

The Church does not speculate about future reinstatement and does not teach that plural marriage is required for salvation or exaltation.

Modern instructional materials reject speculation

The 2013 Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual directly instructs:

 :“Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.”

This manual represents official teaching guidance and explicitly states that there is no revealed knowledge establishing plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation.

Historical context: commandment versus permanence

Plural marriage was practiced when specifically commanded. John Taylor explained in 1866 that the command to practice plural marriage had come from God and was binding at that time.

But this reflects a broader Latter-day Saint principle: obedience to current revelation is required for exaltation. When the commandment was in force, rejecting it constituted rejecting divine instruction. When the commandment was later withdrawn, the obligation ceased.

In 1890, Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto ending the practice of plural marriage in the Church. Under the doctrine of continuing revelation, commandments can be given and withdrawn according to divine will.

Scripture distinguishes eternal marriage from plural marriage

Some critics argue that Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches that polygamy is required for exaltation. The argument usually centers on verse 4, which warns of damnation for rejecting the “new and everlasting covenant.”

However, scripture elsewhere defines the “new and everlasting covenant” as the fulness of the gospel (see D&C 66:2; 49:9; 76:101; 131:2). It predates plural marriage and encompasses all saving ordinances—not polygamy alone.

D&C 132:19 promises exaltation to a man who marries “a wife” (singular) by proper authority and lives faithfully. The text teaches the necessity of eternal marriage, not specifically plural marriage.

The Book of Mormon reinforces that monogamy is the norm unless God commands otherwise (Jacob 2:27–30). Plural marriage functions in Latter-day Saint theology as an exception permitted only by specific divine command—not as a universal or eternal requirement.

Official clarification on eternal marriage

In 1912, Charles W. Penrose addressed the matter directly in the Improvement Era:

Question: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?
Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential.

Penrose clearly distinguished between eternal (celestial) marriage and plural marriage. Eternal marriage is essential for the highest degree of celestial glory; plural marriage is not.

Revelation is adapted to circumstance

Joseph Smith taught that God governs His Church “by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.” Latter-day Saint theology explicitly rejects the idea that divine commands cannot change.

The Bible itself demonstrates this pattern:

• Noah was commanded to build an ark (Genesis 6).
• Moses instituted the Passover (Exodus 12).
• Jesus Christ reinterpreted Passover at the Last Supper (Matthew 26).
• Peter was later commanded to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 10), reversing earlier restrictions.

In each case, obedience to current revelation—not strict permanence of former commands—was the standard.

Conclusion

Plural marriage was practiced when commanded and discontinued when rescinded. The consistent teaching of scripture and official Church instruction is that eternal marriage—sealed by proper authority—is necessary for exaltation. There is no authoritative doctrine that plural marriage is required.

Exaltation in Latter-day Saint theology is grounded in covenant faithfulness under living prophetic direction. Plural marriage is a historical practice that functioned under specific command, not an eternal prerequisite for salvation. Under current revealed doctrine, plural marriage is not required for exaltation.

Did D&C 132 contradict earlier-canonized revelations that stipulated monogamy?

One of the most common claims made about early Latter-day Saint scripture is that Doctrine and Covenants 132 contradicts the 1835 statement on marriage published as Doctrine and Covenants 101 in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Critics argue that the 1835 declaration—stating that “one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband”—directly conflicts with the later revelation on plural marriage.

However, a careful reading of both texts—alongside historical context—shows that there is no necessary contradiction. Rather, the two texts address different purposes, different audiences, and different circumstances.

What Was the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants' statement on marriage?

The 1835 statement on marriage (Section 101 in the 1835 edition; it was later removed) was not presented as a revelation received by Joseph Smith. Instead, it was a formal declaration adopted by the Church to clarify its public stance in response to accusations. By 1835, critics were already accusing the Church of promoting “polygamy” or “spiritual wifery.” In this context, the statement functioned as a public denial of unauthorized marital practices. It affirmed:

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband…”

Several important features stand out:

• It was defensive and declarative, not revelatory.
• It addressed public accusations, not the inner theology of sealing or eternal marriage.
• It did not claim that God could never command otherwise.

Most significantly, the statement says what the Church believed and taught publicly at that time. It does not declare that God is incapable of authorizing plural marriage under any circumstances.

What Is Doctrine and Covenants 132?

Doctrine and Covenants 132, recorded in 1843 but reflecting principles taught earlier in private, presents a revelation on eternal marriage and, within that broader doctrine, explains the possibility of plural marriage when commanded by God.

The revelation explicitly frames plural marriage as:

• A divine command given in specific periods,
• Comparable to commands given to biblical patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David,
• Not a general rule for all people at all times.

Section 132 teaches that monogamy is the default standard unless God commands otherwise. It presents plural marriage not as a universal moral norm, but as an exception instituted by revelation.

Is There a Logical Contradiction?

A genuine contradiction would require two irreconcilable propositions such as:

• Proposition A: “God can never authorize plural marriage.”
• Proposition B: “God has authorized plural marriage.”

But the 1835 statement does not make Proposition A. It affirms monogamy as the Church’s marital standard. It does not deny God’s sovereign right to command exceptions.

Throughout scripture, divine marital commands vary by dispensation:

• Under the Law of Moses, levirate marriage was commanded.
• Biblical patriarchs practiced plural marriage with divine approval.
• In the New Testament era, monogamy is the assumed norm.

Latter-day Saint theology has long affirmed that God gives commandments “according to the times and seasons.” From that perspective, D&C 132 does not negate monogamy as a general rule; it situates plural marriage within a limited, commanded framework.

Historical Timing and Public Secrecy

Another key issue is historical development.

Evidence suggests that Joseph Smith began privately teaching principles related to plural marriage before 1843, though the public announcement came much later under Brigham Young in 1852 in Salt Lake City.

In 1835, plural marriage was not publicly practiced by the Church at large. The defensive statement in Section 101 addressed public conduct and unauthorized relationships. It did not function as a comprehensive theological treatise on eternal sealing.

Thus, rather than contradicting a standing revelation, Section 132 expands upon doctrines that were not publicly formalized in 1835.

The Removal of the 1835 Statement

When the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published under Brigham Young, the 1835 declaration was removed and replaced with Section 132.

This editorial change reflected:

• Recognition that the 1835 text was not presented as a revelation.
• The fact that the Church was then openly practicing plural marriage.
• An effort to align the canon strictly with revelatory material.

The removal does not imply contradiction; rather, it clarifies genre. One was a policy declaration; the other, a claimed revelation.

Monogamy as the Standing Rule

Importantly, Latter-day Saints today practice monogamy. Following the 1890 Manifesto issued by Wilford Woodruff, new plural marriages ceased in the Church.

From a doctrinal perspective, the pattern is consistent:

• Monogamy is the general standard.
• Plural marriage may be commanded by God in specific circumstances.
• Absent command, monogamy governs.

This structure mirrors the biblical precedent invoked in D&C 132 itself.

When read carefully in context, there is no necessary conflict between the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants 101 and Doctrine and Covenants 132.

The 1835 statement was:

• A public declaration,
• Defensive in tone,
• Not presented as revelation.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 was:

• A recorded revelation,
• Theological in scope,
• Presenting plural marriage as an exception by divine command.

Rather than presenting a flat contradiction, the historical and doctrinal record shows development, clarification, and situational application consistent with the broader Latter-day Saint understanding of continuing revelation.

The question ultimately turns not on logical incompatibility, but on whether one accepts the premise of prophetic authority and divine command operating in different times and circumstances. Within that framework, the two texts can coherently stand together.

Is plural marriage sexist?

It is claimed that the historical practice of polygamy as well as contemporary theology about polygamy and its possible extension into the eternities by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sexist. This has been most passionately argued by Latter-day Saint poet Carol Lynn Pearson in her book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men.

The observation that allegedly grounds this assertion is that polygamy fragments women's emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. As Brian C. Hales has argued:

In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practiced, her “emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife” are increased from zero to some fraction depending on how many other wives the man has. However, the other wives’ opportunities are diminished as a result of the new plural matrimony.

Do these assertions hold?

The Three Aspects of Equality

It's important that we divide equality into three distinct aspects.

The global concept of equality includes but is not necessarily limited to three, distinct aspects: the descriptive aspect, the normative aspect, and the programmatic aspect. We often think that people should be equal in what they have because they are equal in terms of who they are. That thought involves identifying three separate things: what people are (the descriptive aspect), what people should have (the normative aspect), and actually giving that kind of thing to all people (the programmatic aspect), if they are indeed equal in terms of what they are.

Now, let’s focus on the programmatic aspect of equality, since this is the one that most people struggle with when evaluating different institutions and their policies. Everyone agrees (or should agree) that equality involves quantitative sameness. 1=1, 2=2, and so on. However, the more controversial point to make is that equality does not necessarily imply qualitative sameness. Let’s first start with a thought experiment. Suppose I have two children, a boy and a girl, before me. Say that I take some scissors and construction paper and cut out a circle for the boy and a square for the girl. Are the two children equal in terms of what they have? In the context of a discussion about equality, 9 out of 10 people will say that the children are not equal. Thus, for many, the definition of equality is having the same amount and the same kind of stuff; the children are only equal if they both get a circle or a square. This is a popular, naive definition of equality. However, it’s not the definition that plays out at the institutional level. Men’s and women’s sports, prisons, shelters, locker rooms, bathrooms, and certain dormitories are segregated.

This demonstrates that what society actually believes about equality is that we should give the same kinds of opportunities to men and women when there are no moral or practical reasons precluding us from giving them those opportunities. Using the terms of the analogy, it is fine that we give a boy a circle and a square and a girl a circle and a triangle.

But we can go even further because society also agrees that it is fine to override the programmatic aspect of equality when morality and justice require it. For example, women are the only ones, constitutionally and legally, with the right to decide when to have an abortion.

Did plural marriage actually accomplish the goal of raising up seed to God?

Yes, absolutely. Data gathered by Mormonr confirms that the Latter-day Saints, because of polygamy, had higher birth rates than the rest of the United States at the time.

Do Jacob 2 and D&C 132 contradict each other?

Short Answer

Doctrine and Covenants 132 and Jacob 2 address different circumstances and different abuses. Jacob condemns unauthorized plural marriage—particularly the misuse of scripture to justify sexual immorality—while Doctrine and Covenants 132 explains that plural marriage may be divinely commanded under specific covenantal conditions. Jacob criticizes David and Solomon for violating divine law, while Doctrine and Covenants 132 clarifies that the wives given to David by prophetic authority were not sinful, but that David sinned in the case of Uriah. The two passages therefore address distinct issues: unauthorized taking of wives versus divinely sanctioned plural marriage.

Long Answer

Jacob demonstrates that some of David and Solomon's actions were contrary to Torah

In Jacob 2, the prophet Jacob rebukes Nephite men who were attempting to justify plural marriage by appealing to David and Solomon:

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. ( Jacob 2꞉23-24 )

Jacob states that David and Solomon “truly had many wives and concubines,” and that this was “abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob’s concern was not merely numerical plurality, but covenant violation. His audience was:

• Seeking to “excuse themselves in committing whoredoms.”
• Selectively invoking scripture to justify sexual misconduct.
• Acting without divine authorization.

Jacob’s rebuke frames their behavior as a violation of God’s established order, not a neutral continuation of an approved principle.

Deuteronomy 17 provides important legal context

Jacob’s language closely echoes the Mosaic injunction to Israelite kings:

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. ( Deuteronomy 17:17 )

This Torah restriction warns that a king “shall not multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.”

David and Solomon were kings. If they “truly had many wives,” they violated this royal limitation. Jacob’s argument appears to rely on this legal tradition—likely preserved on the Brass Plates—as evidence that these kings exceeded divinely sanctioned bounds.

Thus, Jacob is not inventing a new prohibition but invoking covenant law to demonstrate that royal excess was contrary to established commandment.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 addresses a different question

Doctrine and Covenants 132 does not defend unlimited polygamy. Instead, it explains:

• That plural marriage was at times commanded by God.
• That it must be authorized by prophetic priesthood keys.
• That divine sanction determines legitimacy.

Regarding David, the revelation states:

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; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord. ( D&C 132꞉39 )

Here the Lord distinguishes between wives “given unto him of me” and the specific case in which David sinned—“in the case of Uriah and his wife.”

The issue was not plural marriage per se, but David’s murder of Uriah and the unlawful taking of Bathsheba.

The biblical text supports this distinction

In the Old Testament, the prophet Nathan declares to David:

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. 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. ( 2 Samuel 12:7-8 )

God affirms that He gave David his wives. The very next verse identifies David’s sin:

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. ( 2 Samuel 12:9 )

The transgression was murder and covetous acquisition—not the wives previously given by divine authority.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 harmonizes with this biblical account by distinguishing between:

• Divinely granted plural marriages.
• Unauthorized, sinful seizure of another man’s wife.

Solomon’s sin was covenantal apostasy

The Bible similarly explains Solomon’s downfall ( 1 Kings 11:1-6 ).

Solomon’s wives “turned away his heart after other gods.” His sin is explicitly identified as idolatry and covenant violation, not the mere existence of plural marriage.

Thus, both Jacob and the biblical record frame the issue as spiritual corruption and disobedience—not solely marital plurality.

Jacob’s prohibition contains an exception clause

Jacob establishes monogamy as the standing rule among the Nephites:

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; ( Jacob 2꞉27 )

However, he includes a conditional clause:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. ( Jacob 2꞉30 )

This verse clarifies:

• Monogamy is the default divine standard.
• God reserves the right to “command” otherwise for covenantal purposes (e.g., “raise up seed”).
• Without divine command, plural marriage is prohibited.

This principle precisely matches the framework later articulated in Doctrine and Covenants 132: plural marriage is lawful only when commanded and regulated by God through authorized prophets.

The passages address different abuses

Jacob condemns:

• Unauthorized plurality.
• Sexual immorality disguised as scriptural justification.
• Royal excess that violated Torah limitations.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 explains:

• The conditions under which plural marriage may be divinely instituted.
• That David’s sin was specifically the case of Uriah.
• That authority and revelation determine legitimacy.

Rather than contradicting one another, the texts function together:

• Jacob establishes covenant boundaries and condemns unauthorized abuse.
• Doctrine and Covenants 132 clarifies prophetic authority and divine prerogative.
• Both passages affirm that plural marriage is never self-authorizing. Without God’s command, it is condemned. With divine command and covenant authority, it may be permitted for specific purposes.

How did early Christians view plural marriage?

The perspectives of early Christians demonstrates the plural marriage was not the absolutely forbidden idea that some modern sectarians might wish it to be

Critics point to New Testament scriptures such as 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:12; Titus 1:6 to argue that the early Christian Church was opposed to any plural marriages. The Latter-day Saints do not take their doctrine from ancient Christian writers, but from canonized scriptures and the living prophets. However, the perspectives of early Christians demonstrates the plural marriage was not the absolutely forbidden idea that some modern sectarians might wish it to be.

Paul

The listed scriptures do indeed include Paul's instructions to some leaders to be both married and potentially monogamous. The Greek in the New Testament is not as definitive as the critics might wish. The text can "be read as excluding (a) the single, (b) the polygamous, (c) the divorced, [or] (d) those remarried after being widowed. The words can also convey the connotation 'devoted solely to his wife.'" One's attitude toward polygamy will probably influence the interpretation one chooses—but we must not lose sight of the fact that it is an interpretation.

In any case, Latter-day Saints agree that the 'standard' instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see Jacob 2꞉30).

However, critics go too far when they conclude that early Christians believed in an absolute prohibition on plural marriages.

Tertullian

As I think, moreover, each pronouncement and arrangement is (the act) of one and the same God; who did then indeed, in the beginning, send forth a sowing of the race by an indulgent laxity granted to the reins of connubial alliances, until the world should be replenished, until the material of the new discipline should attain to forwardness: now, however, at the extreme boundaries of the times, has checked (the command) which He had sent out, and recalled the indulgence which He had granted; not without a reasonable ground for the extension (of that indulgence) in the beginning, and the limitation of it in the end.

Tertullian's perspective is strikingly similar to Jacob 2꞉30, in which monogamy is the norm, but God may command exceptions to "raise up seed."

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr argued that David's sin was only in the matter of Uriah's wife, and echoed a common early Christian idea that marriage was a "mystery," or sacred rite of the type which Latter-day Saints associate with temple worship:

And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this.

Justin saw the patriarchs' marriages not as corruptions or something which God 'winked at,' but acts with significant ritual and religious power.

Augustine

Even Augustine, a towering figure in Christian theology, held that polygamy was not something that was a crime before God, but rather a matter that depended more upon cultural biases:

Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the [secular] laws forbid it.

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 (click to expand)

Back to Top