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. Jeffrey says:

    You know, I’m willing to bet that the LDS men who really love their wife, wouldn’t marry another woman, even if their prophet said God commanded us to take up polygamy again.

    And I am also willing to bet the wife wouldn’t be too happy about it either.

    My wife, who was LDS and is recently not anymore (Praise be to God!) asked me how I would feel about having more than one wife. The idea honestly makes me sad. Do you know what kind of contention that would create between me and my wives, or between my wives themselves? It would probably create jealousy and self esteem issues, which aren’t fruits of the spirit last time I checked. Would God command such a thing?

    I think in Joseph Smith/BY’s time, women were treated quite differently. Not so much as equals like they are treated today. Women were more submissive to men in that day I believe. I also believe the first 4 or 5 presidents of the LDS church took advantage of that fact. Joseph Smith is called a womanizer for a reason.

    The sad thing is, is that because those women believed in Joseph Smith’s lies on the necesitty of polygamy, they didn’t leave his side because their eternal salvation was at stake. The deeper it went, the harder it got for them.

    I would like to hear from some LDS people on here that are currently married and in love. How would you feel if you were commanded to bring another 1, 2, 3, 10 women into your life? And ladies, how would you feel about your husband sleeping with other women, spending time with them and not you?

  2. Michael P says:

    I’ve asked the women what they think of polygamy, and not one has answered. Haven’t seen clarity or amanda around recently, either, so we may not get an answer.

    But polygamy has never truly left the church. As Sharon mentions, it seems bound to its legality, which is the primary reason it was banned in the first place (to gain statehood and be in conformity with law). Yet, it is still a part of the church, for better or for worse.

  3. Alex D says:

    I recently came across a quote by Apostle Orson Pratt from the Journal of Discourses, vol. 17. It’s quite an eye-opener as to how precious the doctrine of polygamy was to the early Church. Here it is:

    “God has told us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle; and yet I have heard now and then… a brother or sister say, ‘I am a Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy! Oh, what an absurd expression! What an absurd idea! A person might as well say, ‘I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe in him.’ One is just as consistent as the other…. If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible…. to believe a part of them to be divine — from God — and a part of them to be from the devil;… The Lord has said that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord;…

    “Now I want to prophecy a little…. I want to prophecy that all men who oppose the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them the very moment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally go down to hell and be damned, if they do not repent…. if you do not become as dark as midnight there is no truth in Mormonism.” (p. 224-225, emphasis added)

    Let us not also forget what Brigham Young said — “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, page 269)

    If one is to believe in all of this, then one must realize that polygamy is God’s COMMAND, and that one’s salvation is at stake here for not following it.

  4. Alex D says:

    (continuing from above…)

    Now I know what you’re all thinking: “Polygamy was only for those in that time period — The Church did away with all of that with the issue of the Manifesto by W. Woodruff in 1890”

    Let us take a look at what the Manifesto has to say about discontinuing the practice:

    “… Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise…” (D&C, Official Declaration 1)

    Woodruff is simply stating that the Church won’t teach polygamy anymore in order to comply with the US Government’s laws on marriage. NOWHERE does it speak of a permanent discontinuation of the practice.

    For those who are wondering whether or not the Manifesto came about due to “revelation”, one only needs to read Lorenzo Snow’s remarks on the matter. They may be found directly following the Manifesto in Official Declaration 1.
    (A brief summary: Snow claims that God showed him through a vision that the only way to secure the future of the Church would be to discontinue the practice… Otherwise, the Church would be stripped of its properties, and its leaders would be imprisoned for breaking the law… Hence- the Church would cease to exist. Let it also be noted that O.D.1 DOES NOT SAY that God has banned polygamy… As far as we know, He has only postponed it.)

    (Let it also be noted that excommunication for practicing polygamy did not become official until the Second Manifesto was issued under 6th President Joseph F. Smith — This was due in no small part to the fact that plural marriage was still in practice in some places even after 1890)

  5. Alex D says:

    (continuing from above…)

    Clearly, what was said and done about polygamy in the early Church is consistent with Sharon’s comments: namely, that the “condemnation of the practice of polygamy is not just doctrinal; it is also tied closely to its legality.”

    As a final thought, I will offer up a quotation pertaining to the foreseeable future of Polygamy, should the laws of the US change to support it:

    “Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives…

    ” 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
    4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory
    6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. ” (D&C 132, emphasis added)

    **KEY WORD: Everlasting**

  6. subgenius says:

    Having only been made illegal in USA for the last 150 years (1865?)and this on the heels of it being declared a sin by the usual meddlers. Bearing in mind that polygamy is still present in many countries and throughout the Bible, i am not sure why there is a preoccupation with this topic other than the recent news coverage of polygamy gone wrong. However, HBO’s “Big Love” show has not had the same effect. I am a law-abiding citizen and LDS requires obedience to the law of the land….but polygamy is completely understandable in both a spiritual and temporal consideration. Current social and legal conditions have obviously put us mormons in a rather awkward position – publicly. 1,000 years of Christian tradition squashed by the Republican party.

  7. Jeffrey says:

    Subgenious, you astound me.

    Polygamy gone wrong? When has polygamy gone right?
    And if so, what do you consider that “right” to be?

    Am i hearing you right when you say polygamy is Christian tradition?

    If I were a woman, oh how I would love to be one of your many wives. I’m sure you could love me and the other 20 women all the same, just like Joseph Smith.

    Put yourselves in the shoes of the victims, subgenious. Would you want to be married to a woman with 20 husbands? While she sleeps in her king size bed with 2 or 3 of them, and your one of the other 17 in some bedroom sleeping alone.. Yeah, very loving indeed.

    Very sick, indeed.

  8. Nighthawk says:

    It was legal, beginning in about 1973 and lasting until Nuet
    Gaingridge nuked the Smith Act which had been found constitutional. I beleive, personally, in waiting untill it’s legal,
    but it was sure hard on Utah’s Child Welfare system when
    the Smith act went down. I was working with a neice in foster care and all of a sudden I couldn’t find her worker, I spent a
    whole day looking for her.

    She was a Mormon Jew, and I did finally find her answering
    Machine and afraid of not being able to reach her again
    [How would she know if I were a sister-in-law, sister, or sister
    wife.] They put her in a position where she was likely to
    deal more, rather than less with polygamous families.

    I think we need to stretch in order to understand one another.
    I do not beleive in Patriarchal Polygamy–where the husband
    chooses the wives, or someone, or some council in the community. It needs to be a very private decision and the
    religious commitment to it needs to be deep.

    I don’t think Converts should try it, or people whose ancestors
    never practiced it, people who can’t put their incomes togther
    and come up with enough.

    I’m no kind of fundamentalist. I’ve wanted to practice it ever since I was a small girl and I’ve had friends since I was
    young whose families practiced polygamy.

    So I’m more for civil unions than gay marriages. Shared property and seperate property need to be protected.


  9. Berean says:

    Just because polygamy has been illegal here for over a century it never stopped the LDS Church’s prophets and apostles from practicing that in addition to polyandry. Even after it was against the law and after the Official Declaration 1 where God supposedly ordered polygamy stopped the Church prophets continued to practice the principle. I guess Heavenly Father didn’t really mean it. Woodruff, Snow and Smith kept right on doing it. What amazes me is that the LDS Church doesn’t even try to hide it. At the cemetary in Salt Lake City they have their plural wives names written on their tombstones for all the world to see that they kept right on doing what they wanted long after 1890. Not real smart for PR campaigns in my opinion.

    Polygamy is still going on today and the U.S. government knows about it but does nothing. I think the LDS folks should go right ahead and start back up again and live out D&C 132. Others do and nothing appears to happen.

    If the U.S. made polygamy legal again, I bet it wouldn’t take long before a new revelation came from Salt Lake. It’s long overdue. When’s the last time the prophet prophesied? Also, I guess then the LDS Church wouldn’t have to be in apostasy anymore in the eyes of the fundamentalist Mormons. They could all reunite and be one happy family again living out the principle like Joseph Smith did. I wonder what would happen if he were to show up on the scene today? Would the LDS Church throw him out on his backside for polygamy and polyandry? We have a modern day Joseph Smith now – Warren Jeffs. He’s in jail now so that is another thing they have in common. Smith was for treason (indirectly related to polygamy) and Jeffs for doing what he did. I’d say it’s pretty close. I’ll give Jeffs one thing: he had the guts to not cave into the government and he lives out D&C 132 while the LDS Mormons do what is politically convenient for them at the time.

    This whole thing shows again the Mormon god who can’t make up his mind.

  10. subgenius says:

    My apologies for not responding to Sharon’s direct question. The LDS response to the legalization of polygamy could be simple. Continue to act in accordance with law of the land, and then prayerfully consider and seek inspiration on whether or not to revise or reaffirm the LDS policy on polygamy. Is this not a cross-that-bridge when we get to it situation?
    No valid argument exists against polygamy in a free-society, except currently it is illegal and the law should be obeyed. There has been noone debating the spiritual merit of this practice when practiced with free-will.

    Your parallel between Smith and Jeffs would be inflammatory if it were not so juvenille.
    Again, you seem to reference something you have not read. OD-1 is an open letter from woodruff wherein:

    “I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
    There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”

    Subsequently he tells of revelations which foretold of LDS “confusion” and “imprisonment” brought by those which oppose the practice of polygamy. He “recommends the practice be stopped, however, he states “This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. ”

    is the issue whether LDS endorses breaking this law, or whether polygamy should be illegal?

  11. subgenius says:

    Yes, Chrisitian tradition. All Biblical scholars agree on that point (obviously you are not one of them).
    The Bible did not condemn polygamy. To the contrary, the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to the legality of polygamy. The Bible claims that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3) Also, king David is said to have had many wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13). The Old Testament does have some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deut. 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is a ban on taking a wife’s sister as a rival wife (Lev. 18:18). The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives [51]. European Jews continued to practice polygamy until the sixteenth century. Oriental Jews regularly practiced polygamy until they arrived in Israel where it is forbidden under civil law. However, under religious law which overrides civil law in such cases, it is permissible.

    What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful book, Polygamy reconsidered, “Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.” Moreover, Jesus has not spoken against polygamy though it was practiced by the Jews of his society. This means that since Jesus came in the footnotes of Moses in Shari‘a, he confirmed polygamy. Father Hillman stresses the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine, “Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife.” African churches and African Christians often remind their European brothers that the Church’s ban on polygamy is a cultural tradition and not an authentic Christian injunction.

  12. subgenius says:

    In 1987, a poll conducted by the student newspaper at the university of California at Berkeley asked the students whether they agreed that men should be allowed by law to have more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of male marriage candidates in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of the idea. One female student even stated that a polygamous marriage would fulfill her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater freedom than a monogamous union. In fact, this same argument is also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon women who still practice polygamy in the U.S. They believe that polygamy is an ideal way for a woman to have both a career and children since the wives help each other care for the children.

    Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist has recognized this fact: “Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community.”

    is anyone paying attention to why they disagree with free-will polygamy?

  13. jackg says:


    Let’s move away from your bashing of Christians with regard to polygamy and take a look at what the BOM says regarding this subject.

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none…” (Jacob, chapters 2 and 3).

    Frankly, I don’t believe the BOM to be true, but you do. So, if JS translated a God-hidden and protected record that is “the most correct book” on this earth, and in this “most correct book” God clearly condemns the practice of polygamy, why would God then give a revelation to JS that anyone who doesn’t practice polygamy is not fit for the celestial kingdom? Would such a revelation render the BOM not so “correct” after all, and elevate the D&C to that status? Your argument of cultural mores and customs is not even relevant in view of scripture to which you hold. So, is God wishy-washy to the point that He condemns polygamy in one writing and commands it in another? It seems that the father of your religion has left his offspring to defend his crazy notions to the point that they miss the beautiful message of Jesus Christ.

    Subgen, God freed me from Mormonism when I was finally humbled to the point of admitting that I didn’t know if JS was a prophet or not; in fact, I confessed that I didn’t know anything. It was then that He reached down and rescued me. You see, the real issue isn’t polygamy; it’s whether or not JS was a true prophet. You’ll know them by their fruits; and, JS fruits really look like the FLDS in Texas.

  14. eric017 says:

    If polygamy were to become illegal in the US, I do not think the LDS church would suddenly adopt th practice even though they certainly still believe it as seen by subgenious’ vigorous defence of the practice. Why wouldn’t they? Because I think they would offend the sensibilities of the thoroughly modern Mormon, and we would see an increase in the number of person’s (especially women) leaving the church. This would translate to a loss of tithing revenue, er I mean dollars, for the church and further alienate them from the Christian Church, which they are despirate to be included with. It would be a PR nightmare and I think these days doctrinal statements have much more to do with PR and much less to do with the leader’s personal womanizing and hunger for power over follower’s lives (which are the only reasons, in my opinion, Smith started it in thr first place)

  15. David says:


    “1,000 years of Christian tradition squashed by the Republican party”

    And this:

    “Yes, Chrisitian tradition. All Biblical scholars agree on that point”

    Are two of the wildest assertions ever made on this blog. Mods – can we do a separate thread on this wild assertion like what was done with the 300,000 Arians?

    Sub, I am probably more towards your camp in that I do not see polygamy as the evil institution that many evangelicals see it as. I think the Bible is mildly against it but there is no direct prohibition against it.

    However (big however), the type and meaning of the brand of polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith is different from that practiced by almost ever other polygamist. Through the ages, men have had various reasons for taking many wives; salvation was not one of them until Joseph Smith. In 19th century LDS theology, one must be a polygamist to enter the highest level of heaven. It was never Christian tradition that one must be a polygamist in order to be in God’s good graces.

    In some places where Christianity spread polygamy is/was allowed, but (generally) where Christianity has spread monogamy has followed (even in Africa). I dare say most sociologists would back me on this.

    “the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine”

    So, I guess it was not a 1,000 years of Christian tradition.

  16. Rick B says:

    When the LDS say that God never spoke against Polagamy in the Bible, you guys make me laugh. So the Word like Trinity is not found, but the Princple is.

    In Gen, God created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Eve, and Shelli, and amanda, and Joan, etc.

    Then we read in Deut,

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

    Now if the King has one wife and he takes a second wife, that is Multiplying Wives, one more than needed.

    Now I am not trying to be crude here, so do not MIS UNDERSTAND ME, The Psalms says,

    Pro 5:19 [Let her be as] the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

    Notice it says HER BREASTS, not THEIR BREASTS, Implying many wives.

    Then we read in the NT,

    Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    You shall cleave to your WIFE, Not wives.


    1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

    Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

    1Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    1Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

    Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

    I’m Married and have been since 1994, I’ll tell ya, one wife is plenty. Rick b

  17. Jeffrey says:

    Know whats funny? The Bishop of my wifes old LDS ward married us. And he said something along the lines of “Cleave only unto one another.”

    While at the same time believing in polygamy, he tells us to only be with each other, no one else.

    He didn’t put on the end of that statement “unless the husband chooses to have another wife, either here on earth or in heaven.” (Where, according to LDS theology, that polygamy is practiced in heaven.

  18. Rick B says:

    I quoted from Proverbs but said psalms, Sorry about the mistake.

    So where are the LDS women to tell us if they could join in with more women that it would be cool with them.

    I’ll be honest here, I would only enter into plural marraige for one reason, Sex with many women, I do not care if LDS say that is not why JS or BY did it. LDS claim it was to raise up Kids, I say Bull. they did it for the sex. God is able to do anything, He is not so weak that he needs to give many wives to one man. God started with one man and one women, even people who faced great persecution in the Bible, did not need to have many wives. Yes they did it in the Bible, but it was sin to do so.

    Look at all the hurt that came as a result, no happy marraiges as a result, women neglected and rejected, thats not of God. Lastly, their is no promise that all these Kids that come from a plural marraige will grow up and follow the Prophet or follow the BoM.

    I know many kids who were raised in a loving christian family that after they grew up walked away from the God of the Bible. Rick b

  19. subgenius says:

    Love is not sex or ownership or vice versa. Bans on or support for polygamy has always been a cultural traditon not a Biblical mandate (except for Gen 38:8).

    unfortunately your assumptions are baseless and your intepretation of Jacob is wrong. Surely you knew that this condemnation is not for the apparent “polygamy” but rather for the polygamy being “unauthorized”. Such as the distinctions shown in Ezra chapter 9. Your motive in these misleading statements perhaps speak that Ol Scratch is the one of your rescue.
    You are certainly free to believe the BoM is not true, and you seem to be proud of that, i wish you well. Nevertheless, i believe your argument to be “not true” since you used a reference incorrectly and maliciously. The BoM, The Bible, The Qur’an, and Torah all support a meaningful, responsible, and dutiful principle of polygamy. Yet you seem to be in disagreement with them all? Gross misinterpretation of scriptures for personal gain? seems like you may be more in line with Jeffs than Smith ever was.

    it is not a “vigorous defence” of the practice, but rather a rebuttal to the outlandish, hawkish, and foolish claims posted on this topic. This is why posters above equate polygamy with the temporal and not the spiritual. It is an error to equate it with a harem styled orgy – that idea is always from someone wh ohides that fantasy in their dark heart, or they lack the maturity to see the difference.

  20. subgenius says:

    Obviously you lack any argument of merit since you chose to use the phrase “join in”. And surely you are not so simple minded to think the recent FLDS event is the epitome of polygamy – u forget that it is successfully practiced in many parts of the world. Even several european nations condone the use of “mistresses” -some with legal rights. This is not a wholesale orgy concept as the perverted mind may conspire to portray (sadly yours is). Also your quotes are where the prohibition of polygamy is only for clergy, not for laypeople.
    Furthermore my “wildest assertions” were supported in my comments, yours, as usual, unsupported. Monogamy has followed polygamy via legislation, not by free-will. Typically that legislation is in the wake of pressure by the typical repressed and closet-perverted evangelicals; so your assertion that monogamy is an “evolved” and therefore better state is cute, but wrong. By the way, regarding polygamy as a Christian tradition, what was Martin Luther’s stance on polygamy?

    I agree that polygamy is not for the Christian Evangelical spirit or mind. The misteachings for centuries has repressed and warped the contemporary christian spirit. This distortion of what polygamy was or could be escapes the feeble and perverted mind and thus requires the primitive response of hate and jealousy. However, I agree that the current FLDS situation is an abuse, not just of the concept of polygamy, but an abuse of humanity. This manipulation of God’s word to serve the self-interest of a few in abhorrable – it reminds me of the mainstream manipulators in Chrisitianity today. Afterall, the tones of those on this board that are so fervent against polygamy that they obviously see that God also forbids divorce with only the exceptions given by Jesus, do you defend God’s will with marriage as energetically as you do against polygamy?. Have any friends or relative that committed the sin of divorce?

  21. Michael P says:


    Quick question: what exactly could polygamy be? What was it?

    You say this like it has some fantastic benefit to it, that was realized, and could be realized again. So, what could it be, when it reaches its full potential?

    Also, if you are married, what would your wife think of it?

    PS– Divorce is a sin, except in few cases, which our outlined in the Bible. And this is a ruse used by many to destroy what marriage means, and its importance. Its a common tool used by the gay marriage advocates. Why do you employ it?

  22. David says:


    I am fully willing to admit that Evangelicals are guilty of a cultural knee-jerk reaction. However, your responses to them seem equally knee-jerk, poorly conceived, and highly presumptuous. Are you a mind reader?

    i believe your argument to be “not true” since you used a reference incorrectly and maliciously

    Gross misinterpretation of scriptures for personal gain?

    that idea is always from someone wh ohides that fantasy in their dark heart, or they lack the maturity to see the difference

    This is not a wholesale orgy concept as the perverted mind may conspire to portray (sadly yours is)

    Typically that legislation is in the wake of pressure by the typical repressed and closet-perverted evangelicals

    This distortion of what polygamy was or could be escapes the feeble and perverted mind

    Talk about inflammatory! You presume to know motives and intent, and in these case, you present them in the worst possible light. Your comments make you seem shrill – so shrill that it is hard to take you seriously.

    To answer your questions: Yes, I have friends who have committed divorce. Yes, I have been as fervent against divorce (perhaps even more so as divorce is more common) than polygamy. Divorce, like polygamy, is a corruption of the “one flesh” principle – not “one flesh” law.

    I think you fail to make the connection that it is your brand of polygamy that is the aberration, even in America (Native Americans have more polygamists than Mormons). Polygamy around the world has been practiced for ages; it was not until Joseph Smith came onto the scene that polygamy was attached to dwelling with Heavenly Father for eternity.

  23. jackg says:


    Your response to me reveals your desperation in trying to defend your sandy position. It’s easy to dismiss my comments by attempting to bully me rather than respond to the issues. I’ve been the bully you are, Subgen, with the same arguments you mount. There’s nothing special or unique about the rhetoric you regurgitate. I used a reference correctly and appropriately. I think you became so aggressive because you don’t have anything of substance with which to respond. As for malicious? The truth always seems malicious to those who are comfortable in their own strength believing lies that some man fed to the world under the guise of being a prophet. Are you afraid to look at the fruits of JS work? The FLDS are displaying it for everyone to see. And as for wishing me well, I frankly don’t believe you. So, as you get more and more puffed up in your pride, remember that your leader has left you as an orphan to defend his work. I am not left as an orphan, for my LORD sends me His Spirit, as He does for all believers, and He leads me to the truth of His word. He wants to lead you there, as well. I pray that you will respond to His grace in your life, and that your heart will be softened to receive the truth as revealed through the only canon necessary: the Bible.

  24. Sharon Lindbloom says:

    Hey folks, Mormon Coffee is for the free exchange and discussion of ideas, but a foundational rule of engagement is treating one another with respect. This thread has been deteriorating in that regard recently. Please check the tone of your comments to be sure they are in line with respectful dialog. Thanks.

  25. Jeffrey says:

    Yeah, ouch subgenious, whats with all the slander?

    Amazing one could call our minds perverted, yet support and praise a man who told 14 year old girls that in order for them to ensure their salvation, they must become his wife.


  26. jackg says:

    Sharon, thank you for stepping in and reminding us of this. I hope I have not been disrespectful. However, if the concensus is that I have, then I will accept that and do better in the future.

    Subgen, I do not mean to be disrespectful to you if I have. I understand that it’s easy for humans to get excited and riled up. But, Sharon’s right. No hard feelings on this end, Subgen; hope there’s none on yours.

    All, this blog is incredible. This is my third entry for the day, and I think I’ll take the weekend off. Just know that I believe such dialog is important and worthwhile. Again, Sharon, thanks. God bless you all!

  27. Rick B says:

    Sub said

    This is not a wholesale orgy concept as the perverted mind may conspire to portray (sadly yours is).

    Your wrong Sub, The reason JS said this was a law of God was to raise up kids because they were percusted. Lame, Now adays that is simply not the case. Unlike many men, I can admit that I am a sinner and Jer 17:9 is true, my heart is wicked. I am man enough to admit, if I were with out Christ in my life I would love to have many wives, then I can either have mupitle women at once, or get in bed with the women who are willing to do anything, and set aside the boring wife.

    If you choose to say JS or BY or even you are above that, I will say I dont believe you. Then look in the Bible, Read about Jacob, Jacob loved Sarah for her beauty, but slept with Leah because she only concived, If that is not a wicked heart, then I do not know what is. Then Give Chapter and verse from the Bible where God the Father says to anyone, Thus saith the Lord your God, I command you to take more than one wife.

    Then you openly accuse us many times over of not answering your questions, all you did was say, Rick, your a perv and ignored every scripture I posted. You live like you accuse us of. Plus where are all the Women LDS? Is it that were correct? You know you would hate many wives shared with your man. Rick b

  28. Rick B says:

    Since you quote Gen 38:8 and I am guessing you saying that verse implys God is allowing Many wives, why not first put some context in it. Read,

    Gen 38:7 And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
    Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

    God killed the First husband, So since He was dead, it is not two husbands or two wives, it is still ONE MAN to ONE WOMEN. Remember, CONTEXT. Otherwise you can make scripture say what ever you want, and you will appear dectiful. Rick b

  29. Rick B says:

    Come on Sub, where are you? I want honest answers as you rather loudly demand from everyone else. Rick b

  30. subgenius says:

    as you know, only 3 posts a day. Furthermore, i am here to answer (unlike those whom i ask), though i failed to see any questions from you to me. I could challenge you to quote where God commands us not to have more than one wife. What about the mention in Genesis 4:19? Polygamy was an obvious Old Testament era occurrence and not by means of perversion. i was critical with my “wholesale orgy” comment because it speaks to the darkness in the hearts of those who made that type of comment. Do we assume that the Catholic Church created altar boys in order for the priests to have easier access to molestation? (and the Pope never quite ‘apologized’) Do we assume the fruits of christianity to be spoiled because a pastor is caught with a hooker, or caught in homosexuality, or kills an abortion doctor, or steals and extorts money from their ‘flock’ ? Does any of these actions detract any truth from the message they delivered from the pulpit? Do we assume that since they all preached Gospel that the Gospel is the cause? Of course not, that type of rationale only applies to Mormons. it is sad that the light of this discourse on polygamy is sexual to you…”I would love to have many wives, then I can either have mupitle women at once, or get in bed with the women who are willing to do anything, and set aside the boring wife”…interesting view of marriage and women you have. Interesting how you use the story of Onan, why did Onan get killed by God? You realize that Onan would have to marry Tamar even if he was married already to another woman….and by the way the Torah may dispute whether he was commanded to marry her or just have sex with her (to produce heirs for Er). No surprise you would pick that story.

    i only gave as good as i got (no more slanderous than any other comment by any other on this board)

    how do you view anyone that has gotten a divorce which is not by the cause Jesus endorses?

  31. David says:


    This is starting to veer off topic but I will try to answer. If someone seeks a divorce for reasons other than sexual dirtiness (adultery or fornication) or abandonment (the divorce has already taken place), then I would call that sin. Hopefully, I would view that person through the lens of the grace or God (and my own sin). Before I was married I never considered marrying a divorcee (or someone who divorced for the wrongs reasons). That is not to say that divorced people cannot remarry (it is not to say that they can either), it is just that I did not consider it.

    Will you admit that Mormons making plural marriage sacrosanct was a new thing? You try to link polygamy through the ages with your church’s version of it; this was never apart of Christian tradition. I highly doubt it was part of any other religious tradition either. In 19th century Mormonism (at least according to some LDS leaders) plural marriage was a must. Many of the pioneer saints did not want to practice it (as reflected in their journals). If there were ever any “unauthorized”, plural marriages it is not hard to see why. Lastly, how do you view many in your church who actively persecute polygamists?

    All – polygamy is legal in some countries and the church still tells it members not to practice it. To me this shows the colloquial nature of Mormonism; it also is a sign of what it would do if polygamy were made legal here. It has been my understanding (I could be wrong on this part) that Mormons will not proselytize people groups that practice polygamy. It is also my understanding that the LDS church will not allow people who currently practice polygamy to become Mormons. Any more info on this would be appreciated.

  32. Berean says:

    David, after just completing two books by noted Mormon historians I will offer the following info from what I got from them.

    Joseph Smith practiced polyandry (marrying another man’s wife). Despite the roaring from Mormons on defending polygamy from the Bible there is no proof/mandate of polyandry going on there. If it was it was SIN. This is called adultery. Joseph married these women in secret and they were the wives of his closest friends. Todd Compton and Richard Bushman both agree that there were 10 women that he married in polyandry.

    Joseph, as well as Brigham, would send some men away on missions that they thought would object to the idea of polyandry and then marry their wives while the other husband was gone. These polyandry marriages were all done in secret including a lot of the polygamy marriages. Joseph was very sensitive about Emma Smith finding out about these marriages and they had many noted quarrels over this.

    Mormons today would object that these marriages were for eternity only and not for a time. This is incorrect because these women wrote in their diaries that they were married for time as well as eternity because they stated that they had engaged in sexual relations with Joseph.

    Many of these young women especially the 14-18 year-olds had plenty of men/boys their age that were available and wanted to be with them in marriage. Some of them did marry their teenage loves after Joseph was killed.

    The part that bothers me the most is Joseph would hold the girl’s and her family’s salvation over their heads and promise it to them if they would allow the marriage. This is disgusting, manipulative and sinful. Add to this the story that Joseph gave the girls about an angel from God holding the sword to him demanding that he did this adds just another blow to the level of sin that this reaches.

    This is nothing from God and cannot be defended in the Bible. Mormons would be well advised to go read books written by their own people.

  33. Rick B says:

    Sub, I really love how you choose to take part of what I said out of context to make it sound like I said something other than what I really said, Just like a mormon to do that. You quoted me as saying

    I would love to have many wives, then I can either have mupitle women at once, or get in bed with the women who are willing to do anything, and set aside the boring wife”…

    You forgot how I said,

    I can admit that I am a sinner and Jer 17:9 is true, my heart is wicked. I am man enough to admit, if I were with out Christ in my life I would love to have many wives,


    Then that was not a skewed view of marraige on my part, that is the LDS/polagamy take on marraige.

    Then I cannot show you from scripture where God says Do Not take many wives, but then show you where God says, Take many wives. I can tell you your god is that confusing and says double talk, My God simple says, One man and one women, and I gave many verses teaching to that effect. Since you feel I never asked a question that is worthy of a reply then let me ask again.

    How can BY or JS take many wives, say it is from God and then read these verses and feel they are not doing wrong,

    1Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    1Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife,

    Let me guess, you will say, they were not Bishops or deacons so these verse do not apply.

    Then As a side note, I went to Amandas blog to ask here why she is silent on this subject, or any LDS women for that fact, and her blog is not set up as invite only. I find it funny, I suspect she wants to push her views but only wants people who agree with her to post. Strange how NO LDS women are speaking on this sugjct, and strange HOW lds men who most likly are married to LDS women or at least know one are not trying to get them to post.
    Rick b

  34. David says:


    The Mormon mission field was the object of my appeal for more info. Early Mormon history is wild to say the least. I find it ironic that in an official pronouncement it said that polygamy was a dirty rumor but was actually practicing it at the same time. Later the Mormons would come right out with it. Later they would push it underground. Finally, they got rid of it and now many are anti-polygamy activists.

    I still would like to know what the practice(s) towards polygamists and conversions is. There are plenty non-Mormon polygamists abroad and in the USA. I am sure at some point a polygamist was willing to join. Again more info on this would be nice. It would be ironic if at one time to reach the highest level of heaven one must be a polygamist, then at another time one could not be a polygamist in order reach the highest level of heaven.

  35. subgenius says:

    i have never disputed that the Bible has rules for clergy – they must be monogamaous; clearly stated in your references. i did not forget the context of your perverse comment. i was simply using at reference for how you view the concept of polygamy – to you it is simply a tool of perversion, and i disagree with that notion. Granted some people have used it as such (jeffs) but many more have not – that was my point – however those who do not understand this often demonize contrary cultures away. i also wanted to take notice of the lack of pro-polygamy and anti-polygamy being scattered through the Bible with no clear “commandment” from God or Jesus either way. To me this is an interesting aspect to this debate.
    additionally, after your chastising me on June 6th for “answers”….i find irony in the fact that you did not respond in kind?…what of Onan? Genesis 4:19, does this verse qualify as God commanding polygamy or bigomy, at least at one time?
    why no repsonse to how the fallacy of men does not necessarily detract from the truth they speak?
    How about any easy one – why do you soley view polygamy as a sexual perversion, when the overwhelming occurrence of it is without sexual perversion as you describe it?

    what do you make of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 ?

    is anyone else disturbed by Deuteronomy 25:11-12 ? yeeoowwwzza

  36. Rick B says:

    Sub,Gen 4:19 says,

    Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

    No mention of Onan. Did you quote the wrong verse?

    Then you said

    why no repsonse to how the fallacy of men does not necessarily detract from the truth they speak?

    Your Funny, JS and BY said many false things, yet despite that, LDS still believe they are men of God. That Aside, remember the Topic about the Most scary verses in the Bible? Not every one who says LORD LORD will enter heaven, So guys claim to follow Christ and lie, Do you really not read your Bible? Can you say False Prophets, False Teachers and out right Liars, Seems pretty simple to me their Sub.

    And despite what you think, yes I do believe Polagamy is a pervision used only for that reason.

    What is your point on Deut 25:11-12, that has nothing to do with polagamy. Rick b

  37. Berean says:

    Hi Sub,

    You asked me what I think of Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

    The text here is dealing with the “Sundry laws” of the Jews that they had at that time. The Jews are being commanded by laws that they must keep to have fellowship with God. There were over 600 that they had to keep which was impossible. God knew that and it was for a purpose and that was to bring to them a Savior who would deliver them from the law. Unfortunately, most Jews decided to stay under law.

    Now, in regards to the polygamy or polyandry connection there is none. The text says “one of them die…the wife of the dead shall not marry…” As I said in my other post, polyandry is not supported in the Bible which was wildly practiced by Joseph Smith. What is being said here in this text relates to the widow marrying someone else outside of her dead husband’s family. They wanted it kept it in the family. It was a Jewish custom. It was law. Her husband was dead. The women that Joseph Smith married in polyandry were still married to other men who were currently living! No connection to this text.

    Abraham’s wife, Sarai, knew about Hagar. I’m sure the wives of David and Solomon were known to the others. There weren’t any secrets compared to Joseph Smith doing everything he could to keep dear Emma from finding out. Sounds suspicious to me. It’s like a man today having an affair and doing all he can to hide it.

    Abraham didn’t hold Sarai’s salvation as being conditioned on her allowing Abraham to have Hagar as his wife. Heck, it was Sarai’s idea. It’s obvious God didn’t like the idea and now today we have the Islamic people as a result. Joseph held the issue of salvation over the heads of his plural wives conditioned on their entering into marriage with him.

    The women Joseph married (polyandry) were being taken care of by their husbands. They weren’t in dire straits in need of another man’s help therefore ruling out the Mormon justification for the principle.

  38. Jeffrey says:


    I don’t want you to get away with not answering Rick B’s question about Joseph Smith’s polyandry.

    And I don’t even want you to answer it for me, I’m asking you to answer it for yourself. (In other words, look into it even though it might be disturbing for you). How do you reconcile with the polyandry?

    If all Joseph Smith practiced was polygamy, then obviously (from what we see of the posts on this) there are arguments on both sides that hold some weight. Even though I of course feel the Christians argument is “better.” But how are you okay with Joseph Smith comitting adultery? It’s one thing to just commit adultery (everyone sins), but when he holds salvation over the heads of other mens wives, it puts into question the rest of Joseph Smith’s revelations, especially the one of polygamy (shows his lust for multiple women)

    I hope you do some more digging into the polyandry issues.

  39. subgenius says:

    Your discourse on sundry laws was interesting but irrelevant to the context in which i was using the reference (werent the sundry laws in Lev:19) . Also, where do you read that God knew that these laws were impossible to keep, and thus part of His plan? Polyandry is a wife with multiple husbands, how does this relate to the discussions above and the article above. Deut 25:11-12 was just funny to me, and off topic, but apparently the blinders you wear have also kept you from that. Though it does speak to the cultural nuances that appear throughout the scriptures—-is that still a law?

    my apologies, i lost track whilst trying to respond to all those that comment on my comments. Please, refer to Gen38:8 for Onan (and my post above), however my list which does include Gen4:19 was for our discussion on the occurrence of polygamy in the Bible (reread that post as a list). Your statement that polygamy is nothing more than a perversions is a good summary of the limits of your understanding of the world, mankind, the spirit of human beings, and the culture which is around, before, and beyond you.

    your characterization of JS and “holding over the heads” to enable him to commit adultery is as weak as your spelling of my name. Do you not think i have looked at this issue for myself. You are the one digging, and all you have are dirty hands and empty holes. By the way, when do you, answer any questions posted by me? I get responses from many but answers from few.

    Perhaps you should see my comments on the most recent FLDS topic on this blog. I think i make my ideas on polygamy fairly clear, and reinforced by what i discuss on this topic here.

  40. Rick B says:

    Sub, Let me ask you a few questions here.
    1. Do you believe JS wife Emma was/is a Child of God or a daughter of God the Father. Yes or no.

    2. Do you believe God the father both cares for and about Emma, Yes or No.

    3. Do you think God would go out and purposly Hurt his Child. Yes or no.

    Do you think JS loved Emma, Yes or No.
    Rick b

  41. Michael P says:

    I still want to know, like some others, what the women think about polygamy…

  42. Berean says:


    You asked me a question. I gave you an answer. You complain that nobody answers your questions. I did. It’s funny that you call my few sentences a “discourse”. You are quite amusing that’s why I like you. You’re a Mormon and that’s why I pray for you. Anyway, if you aren’t going to bother explaining the context in your question when using the scripture reference, then how do you expect me to answer it? I’m not a mind reader.

    Yes, sundry laws were also talked about in Deuteronomy 25 as well as in Leviticus. There were over 600 laws that were given to the people for them to keep. If the law was possible to be lived and fulfilled completely by man, then we would have no need for the Savior. Only Christ was able to fulfill the law to its fullest (Matt 5:17). That is why I am curious as to how Mormons expect to live the Mormon law which is impossible to keep as well and think somehow they can earn their way back to Heavenly Father.

    The subject of the thread is polygamy and the hopeful fulfillment of living out the principle of D&C 132 by Mormons that Joseph Smith lived. Joseph practiced polygamy and polyandry. Most Mormons don’t know this. I applaud you if you do. If the subject was not relevant, then what was your intent of asking me to look at Deut 25 where it talks about a brother marrying another brother’s wife (even though in the text he has died and the wife is not a widow)?

    You only asked me about Deut 25:5-10 – not verses 11-12 that you said was “off topic”. Shall I put on my “blinders” to discuss something that is not relevant to this thread when you just made a point to me about supposedly doing the same thing? If you’d like a comedy review of your take on verses 11&12, then I guess we would need to clear that through the moderator first.

  43. falcon says:

    It’s embarrassing to read the comments of the propoligs here. I want to say I’m ashamed for them because they certainly aren’t able to feel any shame themselves. This is the mesmerised crowd that will merrily follow a “prophet” into outer darkness. Doesn’t the proJoe Smith bunch feel any sense of compassion for the adolescent girls and married women he seduced? To deny it happened indicates to me a psychological disorder in need of treatment. It a fact. However for our proplig friends, facts don’t mean much. Facts and history are things to be messaged to fit the popular narrative and religious template. The frist time Joseph Smith made a move on my wife, I’d casterate him. If he went after my daughter, he’d be begging me for his life. This is an example of the type of rage the propoligs should be feeling. Instead they alabi for that jerk and endorse his practices. I certainly hope this view of polygamy is not held by the majority of the Utah LDS.

  44. Michael P says:

    Falcon, actually, some did fight back. In Nauvoo. They even went public with it. JS decided this was unruly and burned the source to the ground. Are we to read into his pseyche with this? I’d argue we should…

  45. mobaby says:

    Regardless of the feelings of particular members, the LDS religion will never go back to polygamy, even if it should become legal. It no longer fits the image they want to project. Over time they will continue to distance their faith from the teaching, until it becomes a non-entity, like many of the doctrines taught as prophetic truth by Brigham Young. It has been a difficult doctrine for people to forget – but ultimately that is the goal – for it to be forgotten in the waste pile of past doctrine. This makes me personally thankful for the long-enduring gospel of salvation by faith through grace. God’s unchanging, eternal “gospel principle.” The faith delivered once and for all, against which the gates of hell will never prevail.

  46. Jeffrey says:

    You just coming off and saying “your argument is dumb” is rather weak, subgenius. How about you explain yourself? I don’t doubt that you know about the polyandry. For one to deny JS’s polyandry would show their ignorance of even the scholarly work of the LDS historians.

    My questions was, however, how do you reconcile with it? How do you make his polyandry okay? Do we see prophets of old trying to marry other mens wives to ensure their salvation? However you may make the polyandry okay to your mind is your own deal and I can’t change that, I just simply want to know HOW.

    What on earth do you mean by all I’m finding is empty holes and dirty hands? Joseph Smith’s polyandry is evidenced. His adultery is shown to be VERY possible considering his character. (His lies even about having more than one wife shows that he is shady. His lustful letter to Newel Whitney’s daughter Sarah Ann even more so).. Tell me Sub, are you married? Would she be cool with you sending emails to another woman, telling her to delete it after she reads it?

  47. Rick B says:

    Sub, Where are you? It’s not a matter of no more posts as I have not seen you post, Some of us are waiting. Rick b

  48. subgenius says:

    its easy to reconcile, for i have love for everyone – yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Nevermind that JS is only capable of practicing polygamy, for polyandry is practiced by women, let us see how it is that i could possibly “reconcile” the poly-issue (even though reconciliation is not required for me because this issue is not somehting i inherently disagree with). First, on the temporal side i have learned that polygamy and polyandry have varied social, political, and cultural originations which have simple, ratioanl, and acce[table roots. Read about the application of these traditions in the world (africa, tibet, etc..) Clearly these are without any perversion or sexual predator notion – these concepts are from the abuse of ‘poly’ of which many traditons-even monogamy- have fallen prey to.
    Second, on the spiritual side the notion of “poly” is relatively simple to discern. Without any sexual tones i believe there is a certain appeal to having such a large family and having the capacity to give and receive love in such a manner. Some men and women feel that it gives them strength and freedom, and that there may be a sense of it being a part of the natural order. We do see forms of polygamy in nature, so it is not too far-stretched. Perhaps we can continue the spiritual discussion later…see my response to ‘RickB’ below for why.

    Soory to keep you in suspense, i am out-of-town on business and the days have been long. I am trying to post a few comments because i do enjoy these “engagements”.let me answer your june 9th comment 1) yes 2) yes 3) yes, everything is by His hand, like plane crashes, agree? 4) yes, do you think he needed to? by the way, demanding “yes or no” is an old lawyer trick, usually called “leading” and is typically a transparent argument technique, because i can clarify in rebuttal.

  49. Rick B says:

    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

  50. Jeffrey says:


    It sounds like your okay with adultery then… You say that the women practiced polyandry and not Joseph Smith? Fine, if thats how you can say he didn’t practice polyandry.. It does take two to tango though, and he was the one that pursued these women and offered their eternal salvation to them if they commit adultery with him.. Just because he didn’t pull the trigger, doesn’t mean he wasn’t an accomplice (even though he pretty much helped pull the trigger)… Have you read “In Sacred Loneliness?” I havent to be honest but I’m picking it up this week, and it covers that quite clearly.

    What does the Bible say about coveting thy neighbors wife?

    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?

    If you are unfamiliar with the stories of his wives, I suggest you read Todd Compton’s book. If you have already and you still are fine with his actions, then all I can do is simply pray for you.

Comments are closed.