Latter-day Commentary

I’ve thought long and hard about the propriety of this essay. It is a sensitive subject and one that is so easy to misunderstand. It is also a sacred subject that I have seen dragged through the dregs of the ex-Mormon sites, and yet presented well on some Internet resources. Although some may claim otherwise, it is not a secret subject. It is just not taught in your basic church curriculum.

In today’s Internet age, this information is readily available. It was readily available when I was growing up but you just had to know where to look. The best official source for this information is on the Church’s Family Search site. Just enter Joseph Smith and his birth date of 1805 in the state of Vermont, click on search and then click on his ancestral file entry. There are his wives.

The list is not complete and includes a few wives who were sealed to him after his death. A more complete list can be found at the website appropriately titled, wivesofjosephsmith.org. The summaries presented of the wives are well done and quick, easy reading. If you want a more detailed treatise, read the book, In Sacred Loneliness, published by Signature Books in 1997.

The doctrine of celestial marriage

There is no way you can understand this unique aspect of the beginnings of the LDS Church without considering this a doctrine of the restoration. That’s an important concept to us and puts everything into perspective. Without this understanding, it is easy to think of Joseph Smith as a libertine and an adulterer. In fact, that is how the anti and ex-Mormons want you to view him.

It has always been the claim of the LDS Church that we are a restored religion. We believe that our doctrines and practices are a restoration of things known, taught, believed and performed by the patriarchs of the Old Testament. One of those beliefs and practices is what we call celestial marriage. It is also referred to as plural marriage by some but as polygamy by most people.

Although the revelation on celestial marriage, also called the new and everlasting covenant was recorded in 1843 as section 132, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. We believe in the restoration of all things, and the practice of celestial marriage is just one of those things.

It is not viewed as adultery

A close reading of section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which is still very much a part of the canon of the LDS Church reveals that the Lord appointed Joseph to restore all things (v 40) and was commanded to go and do the works of Abraham (v 32). The Lord affirmed that Joseph had the sealing power (v 46 & 48) and that the Lord had already given him plural wives (v 52).

Verses 61 and 64 point out that the first wife holds the keys of this power and therefore, she is the one who administers or allows her husband to enter into additional marriages. It is she that gives them to him. However, verse 65 makes it clear that if she doesn’t believe and accept the doctrine when taught, that he is justified to receive any additional wives the Lord gives him.

And that is exactly the situation Joseph was in. Emma didn’t like plural marriage although she did try to make it work on a couple of occasions. She accepted Eliza and Emily Partridge for a short season as well as Maria and Sarah Lawrence. Joseph and Emma were sealed during one of her periods of acceptance. However, it was short-lived and she then threw his other wives out.

Not practiced openly, denied publicly

Joseph taught this doctrine to his counselors in the First Presidency and to the Twelve Apostles. It was difficult for most to accept at first, but just as he did with the additional wives to whom he proposed, he invited his trusted associates to obtain a revelation and witness for themselves that the doctrine was true, ennobling and exalting. Most did and many of them followed his example.

However, the doctrine was not taught openly, and was, in fact, denied when it came up as it did quite often during the later Nauvoo period. Now that is a difficult thing for many of our critics to accept. It is bad enough that Joseph and a few other leaders participated in the practice of plural marriage clandestinely, but to then deny it and to publicly preach against it is just hypocritical.

The problem was that there were some who took license with this practice and then turned it into something that it was not meant to be. They called it “spiritual wifery,” and enticed women into adulterous relationships claiming that Joseph approved and sanctioned it. Joseph was forced to preach against it publicly because John C. Bennett was teaching and practicing it unlawfully.

Our critics are shocked

When people investigate the church and the subject of plural marriage comes up, most are familiar with Brigham Young as being the primary example of the practice among the early Latter-day Saint church. However, many are surprised when they learn that the Prophet Joseph Smith was the originator of the doctrine and the practice. Joseph had at least thirty wives.

I suppose that is shocking to learn because Joseph figures so prominently in the story of the restoration. The missionaries teach of the sacred experiences of Joseph in the First Vision, the visits of the angel Moroni, the appearances of old testament prophets in the Kirtland temple and of Joseph’s vision of the three degrees of glory, including his glorious testimony of the Savior.

Our critics have capitalized on this and delight to point it out with fervent zeal and language that makes it obvious that there is no acceptance or desire to understand that this could possibly be something that really was revealed by the Lord as a part of the restoration of all things in the last days. They do not want you to see celestial marriage as anything other than base carnal desire.

Not practiced today

I have written in a previous essay that I hold strongly to the idea of plural marriage still being an eternal doctrine. Latter-day Saints no longer practice it, and have not for over a hundred years. Of course there are those who claim to be Fundamentalist Mormons who live in polygamy, and are mostly in Utah, but they are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This topic will continue to be of interest to those who learn about the LDS Church, and will be for a long time to come. It is a curiosity because it is not the social norm in the United States or in most of the Christian world. It has been in the news a lot lately with the FLDS raids in Texas and with the show Big Love on HBO portraying polygamy as a big part of Utah life. It’s not.

The church goes to great lengths to point out that Mormons do not practice polygamy. There are numerous entries on the subject in the Newsroom and even a one page website that gives a great summary of the message that we want to get out to the world. You can find it on my sidebar. The doctrine may still be in our scriptures, but we do not practice it. Those who do are cut off.

Summary and conclusion

As I noted at the beginning, I have been hesitant to write this essay but have had it on my list to do for a long time. I want to have it available on my blog to refer readers to it as it comes up in dialog. I do not like the language our critics use to describe Joseph’s difficulties because he was the first to begin this practice in the last dispensation. Brigham Young had it much easier.

Yes, Joseph Smith had many plural wives. He entered into the law of celestial marriage by way of commandment from God. No, it was not easy for him to obey this commandment. His wife, Emma, who loved him dearly and believed in him as a prophet, nevertheless had a very difficult time accepting this revelation and did not want to share Joseph with the other women in his life.

You can read a lot more about this on various Internet sites listed below, and even the Wikipedia articles about each of his wives are presented fairly accurately. The church is not trying to hide this information and has not for many years. It is a part of our heritage and history. It is a sacred part of our religion that was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith in these, the latter days.

————————————————-

For additional information:

01. Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith website
02. Origin of Latter-day Saint Polygamy – Wikipedia
03. In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton – Signature Books
04. Review of In Sacred Loneliness from FARMS
05. SHIELDS review of In Sacred Loneliness
06. FAIR – Joseph’s marriages to young women
07. FAIR – Joseph Smith and polyandry
08. FAIR – How Emma felt about plural marriage
09. FAIR – Charges against Joseph of lustful motives
10. FAIR – Resources – Joseph Smith and polygamy

The last line of Elder Nelson’s conference talk states that we “may be assured of exaltation in the kingdom of God.” What an amazing promise. He makes this wonderful declaration to the Saints conditional upon several requirements. In doing so, he is speaking on behalf of the Lord as a prophet and apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is only repeating what the Lord has promised.

One of those requirements of course, is to be married in the temple and to have that marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Elder Nelson’s discourse is entitled Celestial Marriage, which is another name for temple marriage. What he taught on Sunday afternoon was not new. He did not share anything that we haven’t been taught in the church for as long as I can recall.

Teaching with patterns

And yet, there were some who claimed that what he said was harsh, crude, unfair and unkind. They seemed particularly upset that he had used a shopping analogy which he called, “patterns of the shopper.” Go figure. These are the same people that were upset at Elder Bednar when he taught us the parable of the pickle – one of my all-time favorite conference talks. I love parables.

In the shopper analogy, Elder Nelson referred to lesser alternatives. He said that wise shoppers study their options before making their selection. They focus on quality and durability. In contrast, some shoppers look for bargains only to discover that their choice did not endure well. And sadly, there are those who try to steal what they want. We call them shoplifters.

The analogy applied to marriage

Making the analogy, he said, “A couple in love can choose a marriage of the highest quality or a lesser type that will not endure. Or they can choose neither and brazenly steal what they want as marital shoplifters.” He later said, “Some marital options are cheap, some are costly, and some are cunningly crafted by the adversary. Beware of his options. They always breed misery.”

Elder Nelson was pointing out that some have decided a marriage outside of the temple is acceptable to them. He clearly stated that such marriages are of a lesser type, but can be upgraded at any time. His reference to shoplifters who try to steal a marriage was clearly intended to identify same-sex marriage as false, and not a marriage at all in the eyes of God.

More than a hopeful wish

But that may not have been the portion of his discourse that elicited the declaration of harsh by some who were watching and providing an online commentary. Elder Nelson clearly pointed out that to receive the reward of a celestial marriage requires more than a hopeful wish. It requires making a wise choice in this life and can’t be put off until the next, as many apparently suppose.

“On occasion, I read in a newspaper obituary of an expectation that a recent death has reunited that person with a deceased spouse, when, in fact, they did not choose the eternal option. Instead, they opted for a marriage that was valid only as long as they both should live. Heavenly Father had offered them a supernal gift, but they refused it. And in rejecting the gift, they rejected the Giver of the gift.”

The seven deadly heresies

This reminds me of a quote from Elder Bruce R. McConkie in a discourse delivered at BYU many years ago entitled, “The Seven Deadly Heresies.” He tells the story of a man, not a member of the Church who lived a life that was after the manner of the world. His wife, who was a member, and as faithful as she could be under the circumstances, asked him one day:

“You know the Church is true; why won’t you be baptized?” He replied, “Of course I know the Church is true, but I have no intention of changing my habits in order to join it. I prefer to live the way I do. But that doesn’t worry me in the slightest. I know that as soon as I die, you will have someone go to the temple and do the work for me and everything will come out all right.”

It was a complete waste of time

“He died and she had the work done in the temple. We do not…deny vicarious ordinances to people. But what will it profit him? There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation. This life is the time and the day of our probation. After this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.”

The quote above is the text that is found on the BYU website. But you can also listen to the recording and hear him say, referring to the fact that he died and the woman had his temple work done. “He did, and she did and it was a complete waste of time.” Now I know this has been discussed and dismissed by many on the online discussion forums, but it still rings true to me.

Reaction in online discussions

I have read blog entries from several individuals, whose husbands are not members, who said they just cringed when Elder Nelson was relating the pattern of the shopper. Some said they were glad their husbands were not present to hear the story. Others reported how discouraged and depressed they felt to realize that their marriage had been labeled to be of lesser value.

I’m not sure why this doctrine comes as a shock to so many when they hear it for the first time. I know Elder Nelson did not intend to offend anyone, especially those who did not marry in the temple. I can emphasize with those who feel that the leaders of the church are saying that their marriages are of a lesser value. But in the end, aren’t they teaching an important true doctrine?

Marriage can be upgraded

I know of many faithful individuals who have struggled with this all their married lives. Not understanding or accepting the doctrine, they chose to marry civilly when they were younger. As they matured in the gospel, it became clear to them that they had missed out on something very important. You can’t attend church on a regular basis and not hear this doctrine taught.

Upgrading a marriage can be a difficult task. Elder Nelson taught that it requires a mighty change of heart and a permanent personal upgrade. I admire those individuals who continue faithful in church activity over the years as they strive to qualify for both this personal upgrade and the marital upgrade. That mighty change of heart can take a lifetime to accomplish.

Summary and conclusion

I have written about this doctrine previously. Marriage is an earthly ordinance. It must be attended to in this life. It is true that we perform vicarious marriage in the temple for those who have passed on without the opportunity to obtain it in this life. But for those who have the choice to marry in the temple and choose to not do so, what promise do they have from God?

They have no promise. It is hopeful and wishful thinking to believe that God will allow them to take some extra classes or pay a little fine in order to receive the promised blessing of exaltation. After all, that’s what a temple marriage is all about. Exaltation is what God promises to those who choose a temple marriage and remain true and faithful to their covenants unto the end.

I find that at times, I have inadvertently offended others by the manner in which I use phrases that I have heard growing up in the church. For example, while commenting on a wonderful essay entitled I’m Okay; you’re Okay by guest blogger Denae on Mormon Matters the other day, I used the phrase in my response, “We have so much more to offer the world.”

Now, I know I’ve heard that phrase used in a General Conference talk or two, by some General Authority, or maybe a prophet or two. Ah yes, here’s one recent instance…“We have so much to offer. Just think of what we have to offer. Other people do not understand the true nature of God.” That’s from President Hinckley, Feb 07 Ensign, in the section Stand taller.

And from President J. Reuben Clark in Oct 1949 General Conference, “Well, I have had so many experiences that I cannot understand why we cannot plant the truth in the hearts of our people until no outside thing or movement in the world can have any influence with them. We have so much more to offer than any other church in the world.”

Importance of sealing ordinances

The subject of the essay was temple marriage. It is a subject about which I am passionate and have written several times. Denae’s point was that she married someone not of our faith and that she had no intention of trying to convert him. She does not believe that it is necessary to be sealed in the temple to be together with him in the eternities. She wrote:

“I can’t believe that God would really split up a family after death because they didn’t perform a specific ceremony…That doesn’t sound like a nice God; that sounds downright mean. So I don’t believe that my husband (and any potential future children) will be separated at death. Maybe in the hereafter we’ll have to do some extra work, maybe take some extra classes, something like that, but ultimately we’ll still be together.”

In addition to many others, I offered comments that expressed my understanding of the importance of the temple sealing. Among other things, I wrote, “I know God wants us to be together as families in the next life. That’s why we teach of the importance of receiving the sealing ordinance in this life. It cannot be performed in the hereafter.”

The sealing is an earthly ordinance

Denae wrote that she did not take offense at my response but several others apparently did. One labeled me an exclusionist with no empathy for those who do not enjoy my lack of self-doubt. I guess my strong assertion that the sealing was an earthly ordinance was something that he had never heard before, or if he had, that he did not believe or accept it.

Another claimed that my statement was not doctrinal and was very offensive to someone in Denae’s position. I’ll admit that it can be a tough thing to accept and that perhaps it may seem to be exclusionary. Nevertheless, it is doctrinal and has been since 1843. It is found in canonized scripture in verse 18 of section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

“…if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him unto whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there…”

Ordinances by proxy in the temples

Because God is a merciful as well as a just God, he has made provisions for those who are unable to receive the sealing ordinances in this life. Many people fall into this category. Obviously, those who lived at a time when the sealing power was not upon the earth did not have the opportunity to take advantage of it. That’s why we build temples.

The Lord has made it abundantly clear over the years that provisions will be made for those who do not receive the sealing ordinance of marriage in this life through no fault of their own. If they are worthy of such a blessing, they will receive it. However, I remain convinced that the actual sealing ordinance will still be performed for them in a temple.

In other words, nobody can receive the blessings of the highest degree of the celestial kingdom without receiving this ordinance either in person or by proxy. There is no other way. That is a basic tenet of our doctrine and is unique to our LDS theology. The Lord said there is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven. That is an earthly ordinance.

Promised blessings are conditional

What about those who were sealed to a spouse who proved unfaithful? We know from D&C 132 that unless the marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise that it is not valid. In other words, there are two parts to the marriage – the sealing ordinance by the authority of the priesthood and our part – worthiness and faithfulness to each other.

If we remain worthy and faithful, even if divorced, we will inherit the blessings of the sealing ordinance. We have been taught that the wife does not have to come forth to a husband that she does not love when she is called up to the resurrection. The important thing is that she received the sealing ordinance in this life or had it performed for her.

The same applies to the husband. If he is worthy and faithful, yet his wife decides that she no longer believes and does not live up to her part, he does not have to call her forth to be his wife in the resurrection. Whether they divorced or not is immaterial. My point is that it is a requirement to receive the sealing ordinance and to remain true and faithful.

Summary and conclusion

I feel the need to reiterate here that I am not speaking on behalf of the church. I believe that what I have written is doctrinally correct but I am open to correction. Some of what I have written in the last section is what I have been taught over the years in priesthood and Sunday school lessons. It is also an accurate summary of my own personal study.

Back to my statements in the opening section – I have no desire to offend. If I come across as too dogmatic or authoritative, please forgive me. I am not a church authority and am simply trying to express my understanding of what I consider to be an incredibly important doctrine. The sealing ordinance is something I cherish and want to understand.

And yes, I still maintain that we as a Church have so much more to offer the world. This doctrine of temple marriage and the sealing authority of the priesthood is the best example of what we can offer that nobody else can. The Lord has revealed that it is a requirement for exaltation and that is what we are striving for. We teach the ideals in this church.

I come from a typical post-WWII California family. My parents were married in 1946 and had seven children within ten years. We were not LDS at first. Although we had our quarrels and disagreements, I grew up with happy memories of a loving family with four older sisters and one brother, my other brother having died shortly after his birth.

Although I don’t remember much of the first few years of my life, we have family videos that show lots of happy scenes – visits to parks, local Southern California attractions and vacations. Because both my parents worked, my grandmother took care of me until I was old enough for school. Life was good in our little family growing up in the sixties.

As I matured, I observed my parents in a different way for the first time – as a married couple. I watched how my father treated my mother. He was and is a kind and gentle man. He adored my mother and wanted to give her everything he could to help her be happy. I know she loved and appreciated him as she told me so many, many times.

The priesthood in marriage

My mother was an incredibly talented and intelligent woman, independent and used to taking charge. She was well educated and was a teacher. There is no doubt that she ran our house – just ask anyone else in my family. She got her way on most everything but dad didn’t seem to mind. There was little or no ego there – he was OK with her style.

When my family joined the church, my father entered a world that was difficult for him but which he accepted dutifully. Raised on a farm, dad was quiet and kind to his bothers and sisters. His dad worked hard on the farm and so did my dad – physical manual labor. Family leadership for dad meant providing food for the family. He also prepared it.

So when my parents learned that fathers are to preside in the home, mother did her best to encourage dad to take charge in family prayer, family scripture reading and family home evening. It worked for awhile but was just too foreign to dad’s nature. He was too easy going to enforce any routine on his family, but was always responsive to mother’s urging.

Dealing with stress in marriage

When mother struggled with frustration in her life, dad was always the calming, soothing influence in our home. He just wanted everyone to be happy. When mother was going through her difficulties with priesthood leadership, dad was very supportive. When her LDS bookstore failed, he took it in stride even though it meant a loss of their life savings.

Sure dad got frustrated with mother. He told me so. When he was in the hospital recovering from a heart attack, mother sold his car without asking or telling him. Nobody knows why she did it. When he got home and found it missing he just figured she wanted the security of having some ready cash on hand. Yes, my dad is amazing.

Because of dad’s example, I am by nature a relatively easy-going kind of guy too. I am not particularly ambitious and am satisfied with very little. When I read of the success of others my age in business or academics or finances I am not filled with envy or desire to be like them. I am more interested in being a peacemaker and sharing my knowledge.

A family in today’s world

When I first married, I brought with me the idea that I would take care of earning the living and my wife would take care of the finances and raising the children. I found an early love for computers and have been making a middle class living most of my life. Several things have made my own marriage different from my parent’s experience.

Like my parents, we both have had to work to make ends meet. We tried to follow the advice of prophets and did all we could to live within our means. I don’t know if living in California is all that more expensive than where you live but living on my income alone was just not going to cut it. Finances have always been a struggle in our marriage.

Unlike my parents, we both came to marriage as true believing and active Latter-day Saints, married in the temple. That has made a huge difference in the way we approach life’s challenges and opportunities. There has always been a commitment to work things out. Although we have both been tempted, divorce has never been a serious option.

Based on teachings of prophets

“Soul mates are fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price.”

Do you recognize that quote? It is from President Spencer W. Kimball and was a great influence on me in choosing my sweetheart and asking her to marry me. We had a lot in common. We were both active LDS returned missionaries. We both studied computers in our local community college. We both came from average middle-class families.

I think the thing that has served us best in our 26 years of marriage is our commitment to the Lord which I hope is equal to our commitment to each other. The Lord commands men to love their spouses with ALL their hearts. That is also how he commands us to love him. The Lord knew that men would need to be commanded in this area and it works.

Summary and conclusion

I feel like my investment in our marriage is just beginning to pay off. I have done my best to love and encourage my sweetheart for many years and suffered with her as she struggled with self-esteem and self-image problems. You can read her story on her blog. I don’t know what has happened to her lately, but I am amazed at the powerful changes.

Our marriage is vitally important to me. I am more interested in seeing my wife blossom than I am in my own fulfillment and satisfaction. I am convinced that the Lord will take care of my needs as I take care of what Carol needs from me. The Lord has been so very patient with me and blessed me with a father who provided a great example of patience.

There is a sacred power in marriage. It is the kind of power that can change lives. I am witnessing a miracle in the making. Carol has lost 70 pounds in the last year. It is going to take her more time to get to a healthy weight. Now the pressure is on me to follow her wonderful example. I wish I knew her secret to motivation and could bottle and sell it.

How do you respond to the criticism that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can’t be Christian because the LDS Church at one time taught and practiced polygamy? I suspect a simple presentation of the facts followed by a few official statements of the Church should suffice. Before I do that, I would like to offer a few personal observations.

I do not have Utah pioneer heritage. I was born and raised in California. Members of my family are converts to the Church. My ancestors were from Tennessee and Missouri and were either Baptists or Presbyterians, including many who were ordained ministers. On the other hand, Carol’s family is all from Utah and includes several ancestors who participated in plural marriage.

I have gained an appreciation of the social implications of plural marriage from reading the life histories and journals of some of Carol’s great grandparents. Trust me, it was no picnic. They obeyed the counsel of their priesthood leaders and entered into plural marriages but it was not easy. There was conflict, petty jealousies and economic hardship. On the other hand, these marriages produced some of the most faithful and devout Latter-day Saints in Mormon history.

The early LDS practice of Plural Marriage

Polygamy — or more correctly polygyny, the marriage of more than one woman to the same man — was an important part of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a half-century. The practice began during the lifetime of Joseph Smith but became publicly and widely known during the time of Brigham Young. Today, the practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church, as it has been for over 100 years.

In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle. Joseph Smith entered into dozens of plural marriages, as did several of the early church leaders. It was not commonly known or practiced until the latter years of the Nauvoo period in 1842-43. Records are sketchy as to the details of this time.

Practiced openly by perhaps as many as 20 to 30% of the church members after the Saints moved to Utah, it was a source of contention to the rest of the nation for nearly fifty years. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, received what Latter-day Saints believe to be a revelation in which God withdrew the command to practice plural marriage. It was difficult for some to accept this major change to their way of life.

President Woodruff issued what has come to be known as the “Manifesto,” a written declaration to Church members and the public at large that stopped the practice of plural marriage. Today Church members honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church. However, the practice is outlawed in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member. The doctrine is not taught in church curriculum.

Confusion about polygamy today

Polygamous groups and individuals in and around Utah often cause confusion for casual observers and for visiting news media. The polygamists and polygamist organizations in parts of the western United States and Canada have no affiliation whatsoever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite the fact that the term “Mormon” — widely understood to be a nickname for Latter-day Saints — is sometimes misleadingly applied to them.

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the following about polygamy in the Church’s October 1998 general conference: “I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

“If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, ‘We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law’ (Articles of Faith 1:12).”

Summary and Conclusion

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach or practice polygamy or plural marriage and has not done so for over 100 years. Although the doctrine is still contained within our scriptures, specifically section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, it is not taught as a current doctrine and is not tolerated if practiced. Those who do so are excommunicated from the church. It was a time of our history that we consider a part of the restoration of all things.

The subject of polygamy continues to fascinate both members of the Church and those who are investigating the Church. It is a common topic for those in the media to write about or at least mention the practice in any major piece about the Church or its people that is published today. It is a source of humor for many, embarrassment for some and misunderstanding for most. It is a sacred principle, an extension of the law of Celestial Marriage and deserves greater respect.

I do not pretend to know everything about the doctrine or the practice. There are many experts both in and out of the Church that have researched and written extensively about it. I am saddened that some critics of the Church point to the history of plural marriage in the LDS faith as evidence that we could not possibly be true followers of Jesus Christ. We invite any who are seriously investigating our Church to get the facts before they embrace false accusations.