If polygamy becomes legal…

It’s the talk of the town, but it’s nothing new. Ever since the idea of legalizing same-gender marriage gained enough momentum to capture headlines people have been warning that such a move could open the door to legalized polygamy. Several years ago San Francisco Chronicle reporter Ron Lutz wrote, “Legalizing gay marriages today means legalizing polygamy or group marriages tomorrow.” Last week the same idea was discussed all over the news media and on the internet. For example, conservative columnist Frank Pastore at Townhall.com wrote,

“Same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy and perhaps ‘consensual’ incest. The collective wisdom of Western civilization, and the Judeo-Christian value system beneath it, have always restricted marriage to two people, not closely related, one man and one woman, of legal age. For over 2,000 years, there have been laws against bigamy, polygamy, incest and minor marriage. No society in history has ever granted same-sex marriage while maintaining prolonged prohibition of polygamous and incestuous relationships.”

Brigham Young with some of his 56 wivesDuring an interview with Larry King in September 1998, (then) LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley said he condemned the practice of polygamy because “I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this Church takes the position that we will abide by the law.”

What happens, then, if polygamy becomes legal? Though Mormon men are not currently commanded to have more than one living wife, in light of Doctrine and Covenants 132 the practice of legal polygamy does not seem to be ruled out. Even so, the Book of Mormon seems to take a dim view of polygamy except under certain circumstances (see Jacob 2:27-30).

But since there is a prevailing belief within the Mormon culture that LDS couples are duty-bound to have children in order to provide mortal bodies for the spirits awaiting them in the pre-existence, and since there is also a prevailing belief within the Mormon culture that polygamy was initially instituted by Joseph Smith (via command from God) in order to produce as many children as possible in a short amount of time, wouldn’t the legalization of polygamy be a good fit even with today’s LDS Church?

President Hinckley indicated that the condemnation of the practice of polygamy is not just doctrinal; it is also tied closely to its legality. If polygamy becomes legal in the United States, how should–or would–the LDS Church respond to those who engage in legal plural marriages?

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Marriage and Singlehood. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to If polygamy becomes legal…

  1. Rick B says:

    Jeffrey said

    Your simple way out is that it creates a big “family” atmosphere.. If we are all “Spirit brothers and sisters” anyway, to what does the adultery accomplish?

    I agree and to some point, sick as it is, thats like saying Since Eveloution is true, why not enter into beasteality, since a horse or cow of any animal is my bother. Thats sick, and as a side note, I am a hard core creationist, I do not believe in evilloution.

    Also Sub, along with my thoughts about God and Emma, You realy mean God is such a loving God that he would really say, in order to be saved you must enter into polgamy? How sad, Thats not love. But if you choose to believe that, then I guess you will find out after you die that you were wrong, but then it will be to late. Rick b

  2. Ralph says:

    Jeffery, polyandry means more than one husband (poly = many; andry = male/man), meaning Joseph Smith could not practise it, but the female could.

    We can argue this point until we are blue in the face but someone needs to state this point, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith and the women he was sealed to (ie not a legal form of marriage) who were temporally (ie till death do part) and legally married to other men (most husbands were non-members and would never join or exed if I have read correctly) actually consumated the deal. You can imply otherwise but there is no proof. It’s like when some of you have pointed out that David only had a couple of wives that he serviced, the other few hundred were just political gains who he never touched.

    As for the 14 year old wives – look up on the internet the minimum age of marriage in America, it may open a few eyes. For a couple to just walk in and get married, some states have an over 21 policy, under that age they must get parental or court permission. Some states have 16, most have 18. BUT many states allow as young as 14 or 15 to get married with both parent and state permission unless the girl is pregnant, then she needs no permission. That is the legal requirements that I can find – so 14 is legal to marry today. If you trace it back in time to Joseph Smith’s day and age I wonder what the legal age was then. I know back in the 15th and 16th century girls were married off as soon as they had their first period (average age for this is 12, some younger, some older). If a girl was 16 or over and unmarried she was called and old maid (this is where we get the term from) and considered not very desirable for marriage as she is too old. So the legal age has been creeping up over the years. Yes you may have a problem with a 14 yr girl marrying now-a-days but it is legal in some US states and it was most likely more legal back in those days. So I don’t have a problem with Joseph Smith having a young bride like that.

  3. falcon says:

    Hay Ralph,
    Could you please list the states where a 14 year old can be married? That will save me having to look it up. Joseph Smith having a 14 year old bride doesn’t bother you? That’s fine. That’s your value and moral system speaking. Seems a little creepy to me though. Especially since he already was married. I wonder if sex had anything to do with it? I doubt it. Besides if it did so what, lots of prophets in the Bible took 14 year olds as brides. Therefore the Mormon Church is true. I wonder if it bothered Emma Smith? I wonder why the angel with the sword that threatened Joseph with death if he didn’t take on a bunch of women in “marrage” didn’t appear to Emma and threaten to kill her if she didn’t go along with Joseph’s sexploits?
    I’ll be quite frank Ralph, the degree to which you will alibi, excuse and condone Smith’s behavior is beyond me. Would you have helped burn and wreck the printing press of the person who exposed Joseph’s behavior. Your mind set and willingness to go along with Joseph Smith is truly scary.
    This is off the subject but how do you feel about Joseph’s magic rock? How do you explain his “translation” of the Book of Abraham? Finally, would you have taken more wives in response to a direct command from Joseph Smith to you and would you have given the prophet Smith your own 14 year old daughter as per his request? He probably wouldn’t have sex with her anyway. It would just be a spiritual thing and very beautiful.

  4. eric017 says:

    The arguement that Smith could not have practiced polyandry (because he is male) is semantical. By this same logic, women who are plural wives are not practicing polygamy because the are female (poly = many, gamy = female). I think the FLDS women would disagree with someone saying that they aren’t practicing polygamy because they personally don’t have multiple wives. The fact is that women in polygamous marriages are in a polygamous situation. Similarly, Smith coerced women into polyandrous situations and implicates himself into the definition of the word.

    While this dead horse has been beat to death, I will reiterate some Biblical facts. Yes, persons in the Bible had multiple wives. Yes, it was cultural, but no where does God condone it. It seems the only Biblical justification is the fact that persons in the Bible culturally practiced it. In multiple places, the God condemns it. It wasn’t cultural in 19th century America. IMO, it appears that Smith introduced it for two reasons. First, to satisfy himself sexually, and second to exert control over his followers (including the people he sent on missions to have infettered access to thier wives). Smith isn’t alone, many a charesmatic leader have done similar things (eg. Koresh in Waco). When taken on face value without interjecting a priori “Smith was a prophet” bias, Smith’s behavior tells me there is no way I should trust what he says. Especially when it comes to my personal salvation.

  5. Jeffrey says:


    Eric said “Similarly, Smith coerced women into polyandrous situations and implicates himself into the definition of the word.”

    Sorry I wasn’t more clear about what I meant Ralph when I said Joseph didn’t pull the trigger, but he helped, (was an accomplice). By the very definition of the word, he isn’t polyandrous, but does it really matter? It’s semantics just as Eric pointed out.

    However, he chose to help create polyandrous relationships. It is not as if those women pursued him. He abused his “power” as a “prophet”. He chose to create adulterous relationship. He chose to covet his neighbors wife. Just as falcon pointed out, it is rather amazing you support such a person.

    I ordered “In Sacred Loneliness” off of Amazon lastnight. I can’t wait to read it. From what I have heard, many of these women involved in polyandry with Joseph Smith had wrote that they had a sexual relationship with the prophet.

    Are you aware of any of that, Ralph? If not, once I get done reading, I will post what I have found and the sources of course. From then on it will be up to you to believe it or not. All it will take is one man who was in good standing with the church, who’s wife was also married to Joseph Smith, to admit she had a sexual relationship with JS, and that would show adultery. Hey, even if the man wasn’t in good standing but she was married to him and she admits sexual doing with JS would be evidence of him being an adulterer.

  6. subgenius says:

    Your accusations of JS having “coerced” “accompliced” “abused” women and “coveted” wives are a matter of choice. Simply stating that he did this is your opinion, because you have none of these women claiming such. Additionally, you know full well that “coveting” was, in Biblical terms, referencing property. The notion of coveting another’s man wife assumes that she is his property, and that is just not true – especially according to the arguments being made here. Modern times see more lust than they see covet. Be careful with your use of “adultery” you need to heed John 8:7. Furthermore “adultery” is impossible in polyagmist or polyandric marriages.

    Glad you mentioned “In Sacred Loneliness”, because i find that the author’s statement below is appropriate for someone like you to consider:

    “I am a practicing Mormon who considers himself believing but who rejects absolutist elements of the fundamentalist world view, e.g., the view of Joseph Smith as omniscient or morally perfect or receiving revelation unmixed with human and cultural limitations. However, I do accept non-absolutist incursions of the supernatural into human experience.”

    I believe that his statement about the “view” of JS is applicable to many of those who misunderstand this aspect of ‘Mormonism’- you being one of them.
    This book presents information in a naturalistic manner and quickly jumps past the religious principles of polygamy and obsesses on the sexual. He also uses anecdotal evidence in an attempt to represent the typical polygamist marriage. An easily discounted book, wrought with bias opinions and one-sided arguments. Sensationalized to sell books.

    yes, it “appears” to you to be a certain way – is there a burning in your bosom about the truth of this matter?

  7. Michael P says:

    Wow. The excuses get even more amazing. Coveting is only in regards to property. Wowee. I think I have heard it all.

    Sorry, sub, I don’t mean to be flippant, but my gosh. You sound like the pharisees who totally miss the point. And you demonstrate why Christ says that if anyone lusts after another without acting, he has still committed adultury, or hated without killing still committing murder.

    Its about the heart, friend, and coveting anothers wife, property or not, lust or not, is sin.

  8. Jeffrey says:

    Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph’s wife “in very deed.” Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

    In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

    Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she “roomed” with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had “carnal intercourse” with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

    Yeah, none of the women, sub?

    To covet means to desire something someone else has.. Is JS guilty of this? thats a no-brainer.. In Biblical days, women were viewed very closely to property. Because these days we see women more as equals doesn’t take away from the meaning of the commandment. It is saying don’t desire another mans wife…

    My issue here isn’t that he commited adultery by lusting after these other women. I am guilty of that. I believe most if not all men are guilty of lusting. Without the grace of God we would all be lost in that sin, among others.

    My issue is that Joseph Smith made up revelation to “make okay” his sexual deviance. He made up revelation to keep Emma’s mouth shut about him taking more wives. He has created a false doctrine that has dragged more and more people into sin unkowingly. He REALLY started to stretch it when he was marrying other mens wives.. When my eyes lust upon a woman, she is not necessarily sinning at that moment, it is me.

    I don’t expect moral perfection from Joseph Smith. But I don’t expect continuous moral degridation from the “mouthpiece” of the Lord.

    Its funny how much LDS disagree with Todd Comptons work. Many really respect his work for all the research put into it, but those that feel a shake in their faith automatically start to discredit.

  9. subgenius says:

    read also my comment to MichaelP below.
    your accounts of the women above does not support your claims which i referenced. just because he married them and had sex with them does not mean he coveted them. They surely did not testify that he raped them. Coveting is within regard to property by the Biblical context. You can not take liberties with the scriptural references and definitions and redefine covet as desire today, is that not what you accuse JS of doing? Now it is you that is the Biblical translator? Much like your interpretation of the Bible you have pulled your accusations and “issues” of JS out of thin air…..or have you been receiving “revelations”.
    MichaelP (see also Jeffrey above here)
    what you say as meaning adultery is true…however noone has provided me any sources stating that JS desired any woman before they were married, thus no adultery. So since you missed my point above, tell me where does JS desire a woman who is not his wife? where did you read that he “desired” a woman and thus convinced her to participate in polygamy via slavation blackmail. Where is it that you infer his motivation for polygamy? To your obviously uninformed opinions it is i that says “Wow”.

  10. jackg says:


    Your audacity astounds me when you tell MichaelP that his opinions are obviously uninformed. That’s the easy way out for someone who really can’t launch an educated apology. Here’s a question: can you tell me unequivocally that JS did not lust after women? Do you know the hearts of men? Did you receive a burning in your bosom about that? Salvation blackmail is all over the pages of D&C 136 with regard to Emma. Come on, she will be destroyed if she doesn’t acquiesce to Joseph’s desire for other women? Now, it’s I who says “wow.” If 136 doesn’t sound as if women are relegated to the status of property, I don’t know what does. It seems that it is your opinions that are uninformed, and your arguments are lackluster at best. I would be embarrassed by your remarks if I were still LDS. In response to your condescending tone to Jeffrey as to whether he is receiving “revelations,” I ask you the same question: are you receiving revelations with regard to everything you seem to know? And, please, try to respond with something of substance rather than the tired rhetoric and feeble attempts at bullying us.

  11. Rick B says:

    Sub, are you going to answer my Questions? Let me re-post it so you dont need to search for it, or say, I never asked a question, I am not afraid of Bullying.

    It’s not a matter of being kept in suspense, Its a matter of, once the topic goes to the next page it seems to end.

    Anyway, I am not even close to being a layer, but yes I was leading, and here is the rest, Since you answered yes then this was where I was going. Every one that knows Mormonism, except for maybe the LDS knew Emma HATED the idea of JS taking another wife. JS so badly wanted it, he claimed he prayed to God and God told him to tell Emma in so many words, get over it, JS will take wives like it or not.

    Now How is God the loving father you say he is and how is God showing love to His Child/Daughter if He knows Emma HATES the idea of JS taking more than one wife, and God pretty much tells her to simply get over it.

    If your married and I dont recall you saying you were, then how would your wife handle it if you told her God told you to take another wife, yet she still does not agree, I believe the way JS got around it was by using the “God Clause”. God spoke so thats it. Funny How JS was killed about a year later, he ruined his wifes life and blamed God, so God removed His life. Rick b

  12. subgenius says:

    Yes i could say it as unequivocally as you can say the opposite, because we both have the same support for our claim. So all the hearts of men are guilty of lust? So JS is as guilty as the rest of us, yet you would only condemn JS, sounds like the usual hypocrisy. DC 136? is this reference correct? I dont see your point there at all (wow, try again?). Am i receiving Revelations? i dont think so, i do hear the still quiet voice sometimes, but for our discussion i simply read comments like yours and expose the inconsistent claims, flawed “logic”, and lack of substance. Everyone posts opinions and that is typically useless if you want to actually debate a topic. Where is it that you read JS telling Emma she will be destroyed?

    RickB and everyone anti-polygamy ( i am not pro-polygamy per se, but i am pro-freedom of choice).
    sorry, i did not see your question above. However, if abiding by God’s will as he directs you means salvation, then my answer is Yes. Read 2Samuel 12:8. Realize that God did not approve of David’s adultery, but he did approve of the 7 wives David already had and this verse states that God would actually had given David more wives had he wanted them. Would Jesus describe himself in sin? No, but how about the parable in Matthew 25:1-13 wherein does not the Lord spiritually marry several? Surely Jesus has never describe himself in sin in any of his other parables, correct? How about the prophetic wives of God seen in Ezekial 23:4 or Jeremiah 3 ? Does God usually describe himself in sin? Moses had 2 wives and committed murder, do we refuse the boks he wrote?
    1Cor5:1 – a son fornicated with his father’s wife, not his mother, but his father’s wife. This clear distinction occurs in Lev 18:8.
    So, RickB, other than being against the law in USA and a few other places, where do you get the idea that polygamy is a sin?

  13. Berean says:

    Well I guess we have reached an all new low with our Mormon friends on here throwing their fellow Mormons “under the bus”. I guess Todd Compton is the latest victim. “Salad bar” Mormonism (picking which doctrines one wants) now applies to Mormon authors and historians. If one doesn’t like what one says then discredit him. Nice try, but too late.

    Todd Compton is a bad Mormon and not reliable? Why does Deseret Books sell his book “In Sacred Loneliness”? When I called they denied they had it until I gave them the Deseret SKU number. I bet they have removed it by now, but it was available last March when I bought mine. I guess if you don’t like Compton then you will have a hard time with Richard Bushman whose books are all over Deseret. He’s a best selling author for Deseret. Guess who Bushman quotes in “Rough Stone Rolling” in verifying Joseph’s polyandry wives? You guessed it…Todd Compton. Both agree on at least 10 women.

    Most of them were married for TIME and FOR ETERNITY. That means sex was involved. Where does Todd get his information that these women engaged in sexual relations with Joseph? Right from the women’s diaries and other sources. Mormons can dismiss it all they want. This isn’t anti-Mormon material. This is information coming right from their very own. What do Mormons call material that is inflammatory from their own? I want that word so I can add it to my Mormonese glossary.

    If Bushman and Compton were wrong why hasn’t the LDS Church disfellowshiped or excommunicated them? Why would Deseret sell their books? They haven’t because they know it’s true too, but are hoping that the rest of the LDS faithful keep their heads in the sand and hope that it all goes away someday. Too bad it won’t. Like Bushman said in the introduction to his book: there is no point in lying about it because it would all be found out anyway.

    The documentation is out there. Don’t be in denial. Deal with it and be honest. Joseph Smith wasn’t.

  14. Berean says:

    Well, how about that. “In Sacred Loneliness” by Todd Compton is still in the Deseret Books inventory.

    SKU# 3210062

    It’s a long book. Compton’s even got pictures of the some of the women. I’ll leave it at that.

    I sure feel bad for Emma. I see that the LDS Church has a movie coming out about her. There is a showing here in Las Vegas. I guess they won’t talk about any of this (polygamy and polyandry). BYU television is advertising the pageants that are going on. I guess there won’t be any mention of Joseph’s 33 wives and the confirmed 10 who were married to other men at the time. It’s sad and alarming watching the LDS Church try to cover this up. Anyway, the LDS Church has a movie coming out about Emma. I find that odd because she wanted nothing to do with the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City and never recognized Brigham as a prophet. Brigham didn’t like her either when she refused to come out here. The LDS Church claims Emma, but Emma doesn’t claim it. Weird.

  15. KMW says:

    I’ve read articles by the wives of Joseph Smith who married Brigham Young after his Assasination
    who had no children until they reached Salt Lake
    and who proved very fertile in Salt Lake when married to Brigham.

    I think Joseph Smith’s practice of birth control via a pamplet written by a Doctor who found it successfull in preventing syphillis. is one reason for his early practice of Polygamy.

    The Cherokees in the Church practiced polygamy since time immemorial and did not want to abandon their wives–so it’s been the YFZ conundrum since the beginning. I think I remember that the Lord said he would have no more to do with him if he did not establish the principle.

    Right now I have a very sweet sweetie, who’s on the dread anti-testosterone shots and was pretty
    much gutted because of cancer. One of us might die–either.

    I met X1 through my best friend when I was 16-maybe 2 years before we met him. Being competetive, I got the man. I learned over a
    few years that he would have been much happier
    with her. I went to University with him and would walz in after some play or film high in that way that happens sometimes and he’d be upset. Why couldn’t I be like other women. Without the babies, I couldn’t. He didn’t wan’t any until he was out of Grad School. I’d never imagined such a thing. I cried alot. My best friend was infertile. Much later, when she married, she could have no children. She died in a small plane crash with her husband, in a fictional ”

    I have a Mormon-Suni Friend who I love with my heart. She is everything he wanted when he was wanting someone brilliant and polished. She has money. He and I get along better than we did when we were younger.

    Polygamy was legal under the Constitutional Smith Act. In the anti diversity fanatisism of Newt Gaingridge/ETB Congress dropped it. Any parent or child in Mormon polygamous families aged 12-42, while the Smith act was in force, acted legally.


  16. subgenius says:

    If God instructed me to do anything that my wife (or anyone) disagreed with, would i not still have to follow God’s will. Where in the Bible does God teach us to follow the will of men over His own. Have you ever read parts the Bible, it is quite interesting. But perhaps you are content with your Bible being rationed to you from the college-approved-and-certified pulpit. Please, help me, Where does Emma state her “hatred” ? By the way, i answered your questions, bu you do not answer mine (see above jun 13th)

    All you say does not mean that Compton’s book is good. I do not recall that a bad book review is equal to the author being a bad mormon. Again with your christian idea of sex equals shame (no wonder there are so many protestant perverts).The polygamy orgy line is played out my friend, you have given it no merit, my friend.

  17. Jeffrey says:

    Sub, you said “…just because he married them and had sex with them does not mean he coveted them”

    Are you… kidding me?

    It is known fact he sent men away on missions so he could jump in and marry their wives without much opposition..

    Tell me sub, are you married? If you are, how would you like to be sent on a mission today, come back, and find your wife married to another guy?

    That wouldn’t seem right would it? It’s not so much the fact that he did it (even though its flat out wrong), its his WAYS of doing it… Amazing how blinded you are by your “good feelings” of the church that make you respect a man that has showed his perversive and sneaky nature time and time again, but you’re still his bosom buddy.

    I don’t know what else to say to you Sub. I believe he did covet those wives. He made it seem like he was just innocent with the whole an “Angel said he would kill me with his sword” revelation.. Your past any convincing with ANY evidence brought forth to you. God is the only one that can help you see through the fog.

    You are quite learned so I don’t doubt that I have to bring up any “new news” to you.. so in this respect I’m done. All I will do is pray for you.

  18. subgenius says:

    You summed up your position quite honestly when you said “i believe”, you say this because you have no foundation for your claims. However, i am open to receiving your knowledge – point me to the source of JS sending men on missions so he can ‘steal’ their wives and i will gladly “see” for myself. Since you claim evidence has been given to me, please, show me where? all i have seen before me is bloated opinions and insipid accusations, but please Jeffrey convince me with your mountains of facts and evidence. By the way, you were “done” with me before you started.

  19. Jeffrey says:


    I am surprised at you. I thought you were going to act a little more civil in your discussions on here, but it is now obvious that you are just plain angry. It is useless to try and reason with someone who is as angry as you are.

    I am sorry if I struck a nerve with you on my views of Joseph Smith. My intentions were completely focused upon the character of Joseph Smith and not you, but you have decided to take it personally and that is your problem, not mine.

    Of course I said “I believe”.. Theres no proof out there of any sort because we dont see this history with our own eyes. Just as you have no proof of the truth of your church, only “evidence.” I can only give opinions based on what I believe, based upon the evidence presented, just as you yourself.. If you have any evidence to offer, show it, instead of trying to put down the opinions of others to make yourself seem better and right.. Childish.

    (Andrew Jenson, Church Chronology, August 6, 1844) – Orson Hyde’s wife Marinda. Joseph Smith was sealed to her 1 year before Orson came back from Jerusalem.

    Look up the situation with Henry and Zina Jacobs. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4:1612 and Mormon Polygamy – A History, by Signature Books, by Richard S. Van Wagoner, 1986, pages 41-43 – This is not Joseph Smith’s sneaky side, but it is Brigham Young – another prophet you hold dear.

    Sub said “By the way, you were “done” with me before you started.”

    Losing your cool just as a child would, tells everything about you and nothing about me.

    When my two year old daughter throws a fit, I put her in the corner and let her cool off. It’s not personal, but I wont have it. And I won’t have it with you and your tantrums either.

    May God bless you.

  20. Ralph says:


    Here is a list of websites that will show you the legalities of American law about minimum marriage age.




    Note New Hampshire, girls can be 13, boys 14. On the last website, at least 14 states allow younger than age shown to be married with parental and/or judicial consent and do not specify a minimum age for this to stop.

    Mississippi says 21 is minimum without parental consent.


    Polygamy is more than one marriage, polyandry is more than one male partner, polygyny is more than one female partner.

    What’s the penalty for more than one wife?

    More than one mother-in-law.

  21. Rick B says:

    Sub said

    But perhaps you are content with your Bible being rationed to you from the college-approved-and-certified pulpit.

    First off, the Pastor of my Church is not a college-approved-and-certified pulpit guy. You can listen to the Pastor on line here, http://www.ccsaintpaul.org/ The pastor wear a t-shirt and jeans and our sunday service is in a rec center, our thursday service is in a park. we do not have a “church building” as it were. This is my 3rd post so I will get back tommorow or monday. Rick b

  22. jackg says:


    I don’t usually post on the weekend, so I didn’t get your response until today. I will check to see if I gave the wrong D&C chapter and get back to you on that tomorrow (this is my third post for today). Sub, I am going to try and just respond without getting personal. Attacking each others’ logic and apologetics or lack thereof is very unproductive. I don’t know what your motives are, but I am motivated by the desire to be a witness for truth as found in the biblical text. From your perspective, I will end up in the terrestrial kingdom which, according to LDS doctrine, is unfathomably better than this world’s existence. From my perspective, rejection of the truth is a rejection of Christ which, ultimately, leads to eternal separation from the presence of God. I am fighting for your soul. What are you fighting for? If you’re fighting for my soul, as well, then I can appreciate and respect that. So far, however, I don’t believe the tenor of our responses reflects that, and I am going to make the change from here on out. Hope you are willing to do the same.

  23. jackg says:


    My bad, it’s D&C 132:44, which in my estimation treats women as property; verse 54 is in response to Emma wanting to divorce JS because he was taking on numerous wives. So, basically, if she doesn’t like it, God will destroy her. This entire section, Sub, paints God as a God who not only commands polygamy, but will destroy a person for not practicing it. This is all very manipulative and incongruent with biblical teaching. Besides, I question polygamy being the new and everlasting covenant if the Abrahamic Covenant is viewed as the old covenant. Hebrews 9: 11-15 outlines the new covenant in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant as the old–and it sounds nothing like D&C 132.

  24. Rick B says:

    Jack, Its funny How LDS claim polygamy is a NEW and EVERLASTING covenant, yet it lasted maybe 60 years. So much for EVERLASTING. Rick b

Comments are closed.