This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
We are fighting a losing battle with polygamy.
Polygamy elicits within the church nervous laughter about pioneer ancestors. Spooky ghost stories around the camp fire. A creepy feeling when exposed to this dark corner of history. It is the trump card The Salty Tribune plays to convince us that we are not safe in our church. Every community has its taboo, I suppose, and ours is polygamy.
Why? Why must it be this way?
It is unfortunate that we perpetuate the Antimormon narrative instead of turning it around into a strength. I believe our history of polygamy can be a strength in these hectic times when man and woman are more separated than ever. We can learn the lessons of the past–some good, some bad–and fulfill our lives with healthy relationships and expand our community through monogamous reproduction. Perhaps the reason Satan chooses polygamy to harp on so strongly is because of this potential. We are failing because we are accepting Satan’s frame of the issue instead of seeing it for what it is.
Hypocrisy Of Antimormons
Our apprehension is increasing even as the general public is steadily becoming more accepting of polygamy. Why? Their increased tolerance is likely due to people’s acceptance of unconventional sexual behavior: the mantra “live and let live,” and the idea that everyone deserves equality, equal respect, even if we don’t agree with their behavior. That’s nice. Except that the very people who champion this sexual liberation also condemn Latter-day Saints for our history with polygamy.
Pretty much all media organizations are guilty of this hypocrisy. Of the thousands of websites, videos, and books I have seen about Mormon polygamy, I have yet to see an non-member argue in good faith. Take Al-Jazeera, a popular Leftist TV network. They opprobriously attack our church for our stance on homosexuality. Why can’t we be accepting? But when it comes to our history with polygamy, the narrative switches and suddenly it is a horrible and destructive lifestyle. They make sure to include a photo of our temple at the top of their article about some polygamous cult, as if we still practice polygamy, which we don’t.
Why are LGTBQ+ lifestyles good but “Mormon” polygamy bad? What’s the difference? Al Jazeera quotes a feminist: “If you can separate out the religion, can you have more than one spouse? In principle I would say yes.” That’s their problem with polygamy: the involvement of religion. “Someone who is gay and just wants to marry is not only consenting, they have had to fight for their right as an individual to choose it,” they quote a lawyer as saying. “But polygamy is practiced through a religion that is based on absolute obedience — is that consent or, more pointedly, is it informed consent?” Are you really capable of consenting to a relationship if you have religious feelings attached? “It’s a deeply patriarchal, hierarchical religion, and women are expected to stay ‘sweet’ and follow the orders of the head of the household, which is always a man.”
To an extent this is true with polygamy today, and this is why I do not endorse polygamy today, or the cults that practice it. But is this unique to religious groups? Not at all. With any abnormal sexual practice there is always the risk of someone being pressured. They wouldn’t dare say this about the conglomeration of letters that represent oppressed sexual identities, would they? But here’s the real kicker: Al-Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar and funded by Qatar’s deeply Islamic government, where polygamy is legal. A tad hypocritical? Al Jazeera’s chairman is Qatar’s ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, who has 3 wives in religious marriages. Qatar is the world’s hotbed of religious polygamy. Yet his network is going to criticize us for it? The difference is we haven’t been polygamous for hundreds of years while Sheikh Hamad bin Al Thani is walking around with multiple women on his arm.
So why is Al Jazeera attacking us? I have to guess it is for ideological reasons–religious bigotry. Why else? From the moment our church started getting involved in marriage and family relationships, hypocrites have attacked us for it. John Bennett in Nauvoo famously created a brothel next to the temple under the excuse of “polygamy,” and became a bitter foe when he was excommunicated for it. When William Law was disciplined by the church for sexual immorality, he started the Nauvoo Expositor to “expose Joseph Smith’s polygamy.” A mob assassinated Joseph Smith soon after, and yet more people who were guilty of fornication and adultery attacked the Saints for polygamy. Today, people who are addicted to pornography and fantasize about lesbian sex use the church as a whipping boy to assuage their guilt. Joseph Smith got dozens of women and they can’t even get one, I suppose. Polygamy is a convenient excuse for people full of religious hatred to attack us.
Government Seizing Control Of Marriage – The reason the American federal government ever got involved in marriage at all was to attack the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In its power-hungry search for another crusade to fight following the conclusion of the Civil War, the federal government passed the The Morril Act of 1862, which required all marriages to be registered with the government. This was in response to newspapers and media corporations inciting hatred for “Mormon polygamy,” calling women in polygamy the “next slave” needing freeing. Saints who were found polygamous were jailed and their wives left destitute. President Buchanan in 1857 sent a huge army to Utah to quell the “Mormon rebellion” over polygamy. The government took new, oppressive lengths to control personal relationships, all because of “Mormons.”
Many women were illegally forced to testify against their husbands in criminal court. Lucy Kimball was interrogated about her sexual history at length, and when the noble old lady refused to give up intimate details, the prosecutor pretty much called her a whore:
“Your feelings were not so tender when in 1843 you married a man who at that time to your knowledge had four or five other wives, and imposed yourself upon his innocent wife, and deceived her, by joining that kind of an alliance with her husband,– that was not insulting,–but now when I ask you a question, which under the law I have the right to ask you, you say it is insulting.” (The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Complainant, Vs. the Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri)
So much for saving these poor victims of polygamy! Instead the government slut-shamed them! So what was the government’s crusade against Mormon polygamy really about? Power. It was about taking control of the social structure of people’s personal relationships. What better way to control people than through their personal relationships?
Oh, but those days are long passed and the sexual liberation of the 1960’s fixed all that, right? We are sexually liberated, right? No, in fact the opposite is true. The government has more control over personal relationships than ever. The recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage conveniently made the federal government supreme decider over who gets to be married. And here we have big corporate media groups using personal relationships to attack and shame a minority religion, purely out of ideological contempt. Look back at our society objectively and ask yourself if we are really sexually liberated. If we were, why are people single in record numbers? Why are more people than ever wallowing in loneliness? Why are people relying on internet dating apps and social media sites for quick gulps of attention that don’t really lead anywhere? It’s not just the American federal government dictating marriage. It’s Qatar’s polygamous government, the British government–all sorts of governments and global corporations vying for power over the people. And yet these are the same groups proclaiming free love, equal rights, and promoting greater sexual options than mankind has ever enjoyed. That’s because these “sexual options” hand the controlling powers more control. Instead of finding a spouse in a church, where are we supposed to find love? In a bathroom stall? Think about it, wouldn’t this kind of “sexual liberation” serve their interest? A family relationship that does not involve religion is either hollow or structured by something else, and they want to be that something else.
Benefits Of 19th Century Polygamy
Despite what the history books say, the second Great Awakening in America was an explosion of religious diversity. Historians present us with an image of austere Puritans demanding strict codes of conduct, where women will be arrested if they publicly show their ankles or shoulders. The media uses this false image to persuade people to disassociate marriage from religion. But the truth is there were sexually promiscuous sects and strictly celibate sects. The Shakers demanded strict celibacy and banned any consorting between male and female. On the other extreme was the Oneida group sect, which practiced free love, “complex” polyamory where nobody “owned” anybody else through exclusive relationships–very similar to hipster polyamory today, and similar to Clement of Alexandria’s description of the polygamous Christians of Carpocrates and Epiphanes. Then there were the Latter-day Saints. The Lord through Joseph Smith instituted a radical new practice, where marriage is sealed in heaven for eternity, and a man could be sealed to multiple women. Well, it was new to western civilization, anyway.
Each group considered their way moral. In his defense of the church’s policy of polygamy, Brigham Young pointed to chastity as the eternal doctrine behind it. Polygamy provided women with a secure relationship so that they were not prey to scoundrel pick-up artists. “This is one of the inconsistencies of the refined society of the age. The defiler of the innocent is the one who should be branded with infamy and cast out from respectable society, and shunned as a pest, or as a contagious disease is shunned. The doors of respectable families should be closed against him, and he should be frowned upon by all high-minded and virtuous persons. Wealth, influence and position should not screen him from their righteous indignation. His sin is one of the blackest in the calendar of crime, and he should be cast down from the high pinnacle of respectability and consideration, to find his place among the worst of felons. Every virtuous woman desires a husband to whom she can look for guidance and protection through this world. God has placed this desire in woman’s nature. It should be respected by the stronger sex. Any man who takes advantage of this, and humbles a daughter of Eve to rob her of her virtue, and cast her off dishonored and defiled, is her destroyer, and is responsible to God for the deed. If the refined Christian society of the nineteenth century will tolerate such a crime, God will not… It is this very class of men, though not all of them, who have set up such a howl against the doctrine of polygamy, which is so much despised and which was believed in and practiced by the ancients—by the very men who are held up to us as patterns of all the piety that was ever exhibited through man upon the face of the earth.” (Brigham Young)
As society becomes more advanced and modern, the strange phenomenon is that romantic relationships break down and it turns into quick hook-ups that leave people empty and society poisoned. Polygamy was a system appropriate for its time and circumstances. Heber C. Kimball said: “I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes in plurality looks fresh, young, and spritely.” Contrary to the media image of a polygamous wife being burdened and destitute, visitors to Utah found that they were comfortable and provided for. They were not forced to go into the cities and seek out work in slummy factories like other women. Perhaps this is another reason why corporations and governments hate patriarchal polygamy: it removes lots of potential employees from the workforce, driving up wages. Higher wages are good for the people, bad for the corporations.
What would Brigham Young say about today? Scoundrels who prey on women flourish more than ever, but it’s gotten a lot worse than that. Today, technology corporations are the scoundrels preying on both men and women, offering social media apps through which people can accrue attention by showing skin, by offering dating apps that don’t really lead to loving relationships, by satiating sexual urges with pornography, and with the persistent urging of degrading and perverse behavior. Polygamy is a poor solution for the situation today, because it would only feed the monster. No, today calls for different measures. But polygamy was good for promoting chastity and virtue in Brigham Young’s time.
Why else did God institute polygamy? The most common answer is that there was an excess of women in the Latter-day Saint community and that they needed to be cared for in the rough life as a frontier pioneer. This narrative has been soundly thrashed by the fact-checkers who say there was actually an excess of men in Utah at that time. But is this true? I sorted through census data and discovered that until 1870 the census found a surplus of women of marrying age. The younger the age the greater the surplus of women was. The census found more girls were being born than boys, and yet ensuing years showed a surplus of men. How could that be? Either immigrants to the state were overwhelmingly male (which wasn’t the case according to the census), or people were hiding from the census. Considering the government was jailing men for being polygamous, it makes sense that women were not reporting as wives on those census records. Also, polygamy had been around for a long time by 1870. It was instituted at a time when the gender gap was very significant, as Antimormons killed off many of the men.
So I believe a surplus of women was a valid reason for polygamy. The Book of Mormon tells us polygamy is prohibited by the Lord unless there is a situation when He wants to “raise up a seed.” Polygamy provided much higher rates of reproduction to help the floundering new civilization in the deserts of the West. Church population records show a large decrease during the 1850’s, and reproduction through polygamy helped fix this. Antimormons will argue that women are actually less fertile when they are in a polygamous relationship. This may be true, but when it is a matter of these women either being single and celibate, or being a polygamous wife, it’s pretty obvious which option is more helpful for raising reproduction rates.
Today, there are likewise record low reproduction rates in America. Utah’s rate is barely above the rate needed to sustain a level population–in fact, it might actually be lower today. So we have the same kind of problem. Except the circumstances are very different. It’s not due to Antimormons killing men off, but because of cultural poison that persuades people not to have children. The only reason we think of Utah as the land of people having children is because the rest of America is a lot worse. But the reality is Utah is on the brink of diminishing reproduction levels. Polygamy is not something that could solve this problem today, because there is no excess of women, and the licentious mode of polygamy that exists in polyamory circles today–open marriages and so forth–result in less children, not more.
We need a different solution today, but I have a feeling it has to be just as bold and controversial as polygamy was back in Joseph Smith’s day. The world still rages about sexuality in Mormon culture, don’t they? Search for “Mormon” in the news and 90% of what you get will be criticism of sexual teachings and behavior in the church. That hasn’t changed. Will the federal government pass laws that jail Latter-day Saints for our modern marriage practices and beliefs? For our traditional system and Proclamation on the Family? Maybe. They did before and they may again.
Wikipedia Censorship Of Family Proclamation
Hardly a sentence goes by in Wikipedia articles on the church that doesn’t contain hateful falsehoods and bias against Latter-day Saints. Wikipedia perpetuates plenty of bigotry through hoaxes about the church. One thing I recently found (h/t Brother of Dustin) was that Wikipedia censors the entire text of the church’s Family Proclamation on their article about it. According to Wikipedia’s records, the full text was there, but it was deleted by editor ChristensenMJ on June 17, 2019. He remarked: “Seeing that another editor removed this and even hid the contents for copyright issues, this should not be included in the article – nor is it needed – regardless of the format. This should be taken to the talk page before attempting to insert it again.” Copyright issues? The editor who had put the text in (Uploader769) was apparently banned by Wikipedia. So, who was this other editor that had earlier removed it? Why, ChristenenMJ himself! Over and over again! He did it earlier that same day twice, and another user (Jbkonesky) was apparently banned for putting the text there as well. He did it on December 11, 2017 and October 18, 2017. This Antimormon troll just keeps censoring the Family Proclamation over and over again. He also undid an edit that replaced “Mormon” with the correct name of the church, perpetuating this offensive slur which Wikipedia frequently uses.
The image of the Family Proclamation document in Wikipedia’s article is cropped to only include the title. None of the actual content is there, because then that would be–you know–honest and scholarly of them to do. A google search of the individual who uploaded this image results in a bunch of Antimormon images with LGTB+ themes. The first is a photo of an Antimormon protest in front of church headquarters in Salt Lake City. The second is a photo of “BYU’s unofficial LGBTQ group.” The third is a gay rainbow flag hung underneath BYU’s sign. The fourth is a photo of a “panel event at BYU’s Varsity Theater of LGBTQ+ BYU students.” Gee, now why would this Wikipedia editor be interested in posting only the title of the Family Proclamation and censoring the actual content?
The Family Proclamation is the thorn in the side of Antimormons who hate our beliefs about marriage, because we affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman, that marriage is ordained of God, and that parents have a divine responsibility toward children. This is why they censor and attack it. It’s like the new polygamy, and I believe this is why these same people tend to harp on polygamy history so much.
Placing Polygamy In Context
Hate sites such as allthatsinteresting.com tell us we have this dark history that haunts us. The hateful propaganda and lies about “child brides” demoralizes Latter-day Saints so that we give up on our effort to spread traditional marriage and the Family Proclamation. It undermines our authority to speak on matters of relationships. Most importantly, it dissuades us from embarking on healthy marriage in our own lives through temple sealings.
First, we need to understand the circumstances of polygamy and the reasons for it. My reply to Antimormons usually is: “Well if Antimormons like you weren’t killing off my male ancestors, there may not have been a need for polygamy.” It is important to understand that these were not perverse or licentious relationships, but that they were built on love and security. If any of the polygamous Saints were to see the behavior of Antimormons who complain about polygamy, they would be completely shocked. Which is worse? Multiple wives or pleasuring yourself to images of random people projected onto a computer screen? Which is more pathetic? And again, it is completely hypocritical when these same Antimormons endorse other unconventional sexual lifestyles. The attack on Mormon polygamy is 100% founded on presentism, where they project modern circumstances and practices and their own personal issues onto historical events.
Martin Luther Endorsed Polygamy – Modern civilization is just a blip in world history, and our modern sensibilities are very different from the way things used to be. Christian reformer Martin Luther famously endorsed polygamy in certain narrow cases as an alternative to divorce. When I point this out, mainstream apologists and Antimormons frequently reply: “Yeah, but those were just certain narrow cases. As a whole, he condemned polygamy.” Well, here are some instances where Martin Luther condemned polygamy: “Your first question: Whether person may have more than one wife? I answer thus: Let unbelievers do what they please; Christian liberty, however, is regulated by love (charity), so that all that a Christian does is done to serve his fellow-man, provided only that he can render such service without jeopardy and damage to his faith and conscience. Nowadays, however, everybody is striving for a liberty that profits and pleases him, without regard for the profit and improvement which his neighbor might derive from his action. This is contrary to the teaching of St. Paul, who says: ‘All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient’ (1 Cor. 6, 12). Only see that your liberty does not become an occasion to the flesh. . . . Moreover, although the patriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example, because there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtained thereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify this practise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly, I do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God would have to publish a command that would declare such a liberty.” (letter to Joseph Levin Metzsch on December 9, 1526) “Polygamy, which in former times was permitted to the Jews and Gentiles, cannot be honestly approved of among Christians, and cannot be engaged in with a good conscience, unless in an extreme case of necessity, as, for instance, when one of the spouses is separated from the other by leprosy or for a similar cause. Accordingly, you may say to the carnal people (with whom you have to do), if they want to be Christians, they must keep married fidelity and bridle their flesh, not give it license. If they want to be heathen, let them do what they please, at their own risk.” (letter to Clemens Ursinus on March 21, 1527) “Many divorces occur still among the Turks. If a wife does not yield to the husband, nor act according to his whim and fancy, he forthwith drives her out of the house, and takes one, two, three, or four additional wives, and defends his action by appealing to Moses. They have taken out of Moses such things as please them and pander to their lust. In Turkey they are very cruel to women; any woman that will not submit is cast aside. They toy with their women like a dog with a rag. When they are weary of one woman, they quickly put her beneath the turf and take another. Moses has said nothing to justify this practise. My opinion is that there is no real married life among the Turks; theirs is a whorish life. It is a terrible tyranny, all the more to be regretted because God does not withhold the common blessing from their intercourse: children are procreated thereby, and yet the mother is sent away by the husband. For this reason there is no true matrimony among the Turks.” (via Beggars All Reformation & Apologetics)
He makes some great points there. Polygamy is usually the result of licentious desires, and marriage should be charitable love. Look at today’s hook-up culture and alternative lifestyles. We are told that all love is equal, all relationships are equal, but are they? Is their behavior inspired by lust and bodily desires, or by righteous and godly love? That is the question, and the (racist) stereotype in Martin Luther’s time of the Turkish harem is a fine example of what to avoid. But he acknowledged that if a directive from God came to practice polygamy, then it should be followed. This follows the teachings of Clement of Alexandria, who said polygamy in biblical times was practiced “for the sake of begetting children and looking after domestic affairs, for which purpose woman was given as a ‘helpmeet.’”
Early Christian author Tertullian agreed: “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.” (via New Advent)
St. Augustine went so far as to say the difference between then and now is merely a matter of custom: “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.” (via Logos Library)
Duplicitous radicals and extremist “Mormon bloggers” in the “bloggernacle” join in on the polygamy-bashing and perpetuate the hateful narrative against the church–perhaps because they agree with the ends of this attack, which is secular control over personal relationships. It is unfortunate that defenders of the faith must argue with them as well as non-members. It is unfortunate that they do not have faith in religious involvement in marriage, the way the church directs it, and the divine implications of eternal marriage. They seek to cheapen and degrade marriage back to what it was before the gospel was restored: a simple arrangement for time alone, under the direction of controlling powers as a means to restrict our freedoms, and with no godly implications of eternal characteristics. D&C 132 in our scriptures is one of the most powerful and earth-shattering scriptures ever produced, and there is simply no separating polygamy from it, because polygamy was the temporary policy that was ushered in along with this new and everlasting covenant. This is not something to be ashamed of, and in fact we should be proud of the strength and courage our ancestors displayed in following God’s word. We should ignore the craven bloggers who throw them under the bus and apologize for their “misdeeds.” It was not a misdeed. It was great for the time it happened in, with families stronger and healthier, the community more united. This history is not a millstone for enemies to hang around our necks, but a legacy to reflect upon and learn from. An embrace of this history will greatly help us lead the way building healthy and free romantic relationships today, which the world sorely needs.