5 Comments

    Homepage














            Kody Brown, the telegenic polygamist of Sister Wives fame, reportedly affiliated with the AUB clan of polygamists, is filing suit against the state of Utah for discrimination against his religious conviction that he needs to practice polygamy and have a minimum of three wives to make it to the celestial kingdom.  This takes place in a state where the Attorney General has openly declared he will not enforce the law against bigamy/polygamy unless there are other crimes involved, such as child abuse.  And, of course, this is not just any old state.  This is the state where a religious group, which still dominates the state’s politics, fled in the 1800s precisely in order that they might practice polygamy in defiance of US law.  Brown is hoping his case will make it all the way to the US Supreme Court, where he and his lawyer (paid for with Brown’s not-insignificant TV earnings) believe he will prevail under the reasoning of Lawrence, resulting in the legalization of polygamy among consenting adults throughout the United States.

            You can’t make this stuff up; it is just too stunning a set of convolutions and ironies.  What is more, if same-sex marriage is legalized at the national level, there really does not appear to be any good theoretical argument to support restricting marriage to couples only.  There are plenty of good practical arguments against polygamy, many of which were presented during a lengthy trial to the Suprmem Court of British Columbia, which is currently deciding whether Canada will legalize the practice. [1]  Canada legalized same-sex marriage some years ago, and that sequencing is likely to repeat itself in the US. [Update November 2011: On Thanksgiving Day, the Court finally issued its ruling, which upholds Canada's ban on polygamy as constitutional. The full decision can be read here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm . The BYU WomanStats Project provided data that was used in justifying the ban; this is mentioned in sections [613] and [614].)

            But to most LDS, the practical arguments against polygamy are almost beside the point.  It is the doctrinal issues surrounding polygamy that stir the LDS soul.  For example, when the state of Utah passed its own law defining marriage as heterosexual, there was actually considerable debate about whether to define marriage as between “one man and one woman,” or as “a man and a woman,” so the Lord would not be in violation of Utah law just if the practice of polygamy was once again commanded.  It says something about the LDS mindset that the second formulation was the one ultimately adopted—it says the mindset is deeply conflicted. Now, let’s make an informed guess that it will take about five years for same-sex marriage to become the law of the land in the US, and another five years for polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, etc. to be legalized.  That gives our LDS faith community ten years, or even less than ten years, to come to grips with the whole doctrinal mess.  Frankly, that may not be enough time, given the visceral and volatile feelings among the LDS about polygamy and the practice of it in the early Church.  The sooner we start really reflecting about this, the better.

            Some may say, “Not to worry. The prophet will issue a statement when the time comes, and then we will all fall in line because we will know the Lord’s will.”  Well, on one level that is exactly right.  New revelation is probably the only way our people will get this straight, and we have every hope to receive it in a time of need (9th Article of Faith).

            But on another level, the attitude such a statement demonstrates is not the best Latter-day Saints could aspire to do.  As Hugh Nibley reportedly said, “God can’t pour a one-gallon revelation into a one-cup mind.”  Our religion enjoins us to study out important issues in our minds before asking the Lord (D&C 9:7-8).  “Well,” it might be said, “we’re sure the Brethren will be doing just that.”  Of course they will, bless them.  But that does not relieve the membership of its obligation to do the same.  The membership has the same obligation to develop one-gallon minds before that revelation comes—and I think we all know why.  If we are not preparing ourselves, our testimonies may falter at that day.  How many Mormon splinter groups do we already have on the topic of polygamy?  Do we really need more?

            Now, no amount of reflection can substitute for revelation given to our leadership.  Until the prophet pronounces authoritatively on the issue, all reflection must be only that—reflection.  So let’s do some reflecting.  Let’s create a vocabulary to discuss these issues.  Let’s discuss what might or might not be consistent with what we know to be established Church doctrine, admitting that even Church doctrine has been both pruned and enlarged over time as our understandings have evolved under the guidance of living prophets.  Let’s critically examine our assumptions to determine whether some of them might be culturally-based and not doctrinally-based.  In other words, let’s do the spiritual equivalent of some warm-up exercises before the big game begins.  For it is coming, that big game, no doubt about it, and they who are prepared shall not fear—or fall away.

One Member’s View

            To get the ball rolling, for we invite our readers to add to the discussion by submitting comments, we present one person’s analysis of the situation.  We will address two major issues: a) given that the Church would be accused of hypocrisy no matter where it came down on the issue, can we expect the Church to take any stand at all on the issue of the legalization of polygamy in the US?, b) if so, can a coherent reading of contemporary LDS doctrine help us understand what such a stance might look like?  Ancillary issues will of necessity be addressed—what is Church doctrine, and what isn’t, and how do we know the difference?  How do we understand the Lord’s commandment to practice polygamy in the early Church?  How do we understand the Lord’s lifting of the commandment to practice polygamy in 1890?


How Do We Know if Something is Doctrinal?

            SquareTwo has already published a piece on the 4 May 2007 official statement of the LDS Church concerning “approaching Mormon doctrine.”  A reaction to publicity during the 2008 campaign season, where reporters and others, such as Mike Huckabee, pulled out sensationalist teachings from early Church history and claimed they were “Mormon doctrine,” this statement was a very welcome addition to members’ understanding of what does and does not constitute LDS doctrine.  “Teachings” that are not doctrine, no matter who uttered them, are simply not binding on Church members.

            The 4 May 2007 statement gives important benchmarks for determining LDS doctrine: doctrine is consistently and currently taught in official Church publications, meaning in the first place, the scriptures, official proclamations and declarations, and the Articles of Faith.

            Why is this important when discussing polygamy?  There were many teachings about polygamy in the early Church which are simply not LDS doctrine, and are not binding upon members.  For example, in the early Church, certain leaders taught that practicing polygamy was a requirement for exaltation.  The modern Church has repudiated that stance, stating plainly that polygamy is not a requirement for exaltation.

            If our aim is to reflect upon the stance likely to be taken by the LDS Church in reaction to a future legalization of polygamy, it is important, then, to be able to distinguish between what counts as authoritative in such a discussion, and what would not carry such weight.

            What we are left with, then, after excluding non-doctrinal teachings, are the scriptures and the 1890 Manifesto (Declaration 1) with several other statements by President Wilford Woodruff that are printed beneath that declaration in the LDS version of the scriptures at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants.  Let’s begin our discussion with the most pertinent scriptural texts: Jacob 2 and D&C 132.


Turning to Church Doctrine: Jacob 2 and D&C 132

            While a fuller treatment of the doctrine of polygamy has already been published in SquareTwo in a previous issue, an abridged recap of that article will help set the stage for our prediction of probable Church response should Kody Brown win his case.

            During the period of time when the restored Church was commanded by the Lord to practice polygamy, some practiced it without any discernible hardship, and still others with great pain.  Contemporary Church members may look back upon that period with acceptance, indifference, or discomfort.  We do not see the diversity of feelings itself as harmful.  Rather, since the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is at the heart of the work of eternal life and of godhood, confusion about the nature and form of lawful marriage ordained by God is harmful.

            The LDS believe that marriage is an eternal principle: it is how the gods live. God commands his children to marry (D&C 49:15-16).  God married our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden before the Fall (Moses 3:25).  Scripture asserts that persons must be married to inherit the fullness of the Father in the celestial kingdom and that those who are not worthy of the celestial kingdom live as unmarried persons (D&C 132:4-6, 17-21).  Furthermore, not only are persons to be married, but they are to be married in the new and everlasting covenant.  The Lord states that this type of marriage is “by my word, which is my law” (D&C 132:19).  In LDS culture we colloquially refer to marriage in the new and everlasting covenant as “temple marriage.” From all of this we understand that marriage in the new and everlasting covenant, or temple marriage, is an eternal principle of the highest importance.

            Given this eternal principle of marriage in the new and everlasting covenant, what is the law (or rule or unrestricted form) of marriage?  Is there a lawful exception?  What is the nature and status of that lawful exception?  Let us first turn to Jacob’s sermon on these topics.

            In verse 27 Jacob expounds the law of marriage--the rule or unrestricted form of marriage, if you will: “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none” (Jacob 2:27).   The general law (or rule or unrestricted form) of the eternal principle of marriage is monogamy.  That monogamy is the law or rule of the principle of marriage is found several places throughout the scriptures.  To take but one example, the Lord says in Doctrine and Covenants 49:16 “Wherefore, it is lawful that he [man] should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation.”  In the beginning, when the earth was empty and sorely needed replenishing, God gave Adam but one wife, Eve, that the pattern of his law of marriage might be set from the dawn of time in the very first human marriage on earth (see also Moses 5:3). [2]   Joseph Smith said, “ I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise." [3]   Bruce R. McConkie concurs: “According to the Lord’s law of marriage, it is lawful that a man have only one wife at a time, unless by revelation the Lord commands plurality of wives in the new and everlasting covenant." [4]   Of course, taking a plurality of wives outside of the new and everlasting covenant, outside of being commanded to do so by the Lord, is always a grievous sin. [5]  

            Jacob teaches us that monogamy is the general law of marriage and polygamy is an exception to the general law, which exception must be commanded by the Lord before it can be practiced.

            With this understanding of the purpose of marriage and the law and the lawful exception of marriage in mind, Jacob’s sermon is profound, despite its brevity.  Rooted in divine love for his children, God commands men and women to marry (D&C 49:15).  In general, he commands them to marry monogamously (Jacob 2:27; 3:5; D&C 49:16).  Sometimes, he will command them to marry polygamously (Jacob 2:30).  Both the giving of the general law and the commandment to depart from the general law are motivated by God’s love for us. But one thing is also clear from Jacob’s sermon: God is not indifferent concerning how his children marry.  He actively and severely restricts the practice of polygamy, while leaving monogamy unrestricted.  One can be “destroyed” for practicing polygamy without God’s sanction, becoming “angels to the devil” and “bring[ing] your children unto destruction, and their sins heaped upon your heads at the last day,” but no such punishment attends the practice of monogamy (Jacob 2:33; 3:5-6, 10-12).

            Our next question, for whose answer we must turn to Doctrine and Covenants 132, is simple: Why is God not indifferent between the practices of monogamy and polygamy, severely restricting as he does the second while leaving the first virtually unrestricted?

           Doctrine and Covenants 132 is one of the deepest and most thought-provoking scriptures in our canon.  It concerns the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and its place at the heart of the plan of salvation and exaltation.  Without its restoration, the fullness of eternal life would be unobtainable.  Thankfully, as noted in Doctrine and Covenants 132:40, the Lord gave Joseph Smith an “appointment” to “restore all things,” and therefore Joseph Smith restored the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.  This much is indisputable.  What is often in dispute in our culture is what exactly this means.

            Given the over 150 years that have passed since the receipt of the revelation now known as Doctrine and Covenants 132, we are in a better position to settle that dispute.  Joseph Smith restored marriage for “time and all eternity” (D&C 132:18), which we now colloquially call “temple marriage.” In restoring the principle of temple marriage, Joseph Smith restored both the general law of marriage and the lawful exception as elucidated by Jacob centuries before.  Put more precisely, Joseph Smith restored the general law of monogamous temple marriage and he restored the lawful exception of polygamous temple marriage.  At the time of the revelation (most scholars say prior to the date given for Doctrine and Covenants 132), God commanded Joseph Smith to command the Church membership to practice polygamy.  By so doing, God activated the lawful exception to the general law of marriage.  Thus, polygamous marriages entered into in the temple after that commandment was given by the Lord were “without condemnation on earth and in heaven” (D&C 132:48).  Putting Jacob’s teachings together with Joseph’s teachings, the commandment to practice polygamy was given by God at that time for the purpose of raising “up seed unto me [God]” (Jacob 2:30).

            However, in 1890 God rescinded the commandment sanctioning the lawful exception to the general law of marriage.  Polygamous marriages would no longer be recognized by the Lord, and indeed would be grounds for excommunication from the Church.  This rescinding did not “unrestore” the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, or temple marriage.  Temple marriage is a mainstay of our religion and will never cease to be our ideal.  The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is still among us, but the commandment to live the lawful exception to the general law of marriage in the new and everlasting covenant is no longer among us.  Thus the “restoration of all things” does not demand that polygamy be actively practiced among the Saints; it merely demands that the possibility of God commanding polygamy (which possibility demands the restoration of temple marriage and sealing keys) exists.  And so it does to this day.  As long as there are temples and sealing keys among our people, God can, whenever he chooses to do so, command his people to practice polygamy.  But the presence of temples and sealing keys does not conversely demand or necessitate that God actually issue the command to practice polygamy.  Our contemporary situation is perfectly described in this manner and explains how Bruce R. McConkie could conclude that polygamy cannot be a requirement for exaltation and why the Church does not preach that it is. [6]

            God’s lack of indifference concerning the manner of marriage among his children which we noted in Jacob 2 persists in Doctrine and Covenants 132.  Even with the restoration of temple marriage, God is still not indifferent between monogamy and polygamy.  If he were indifferent, his words to us might be, “As long as you marry in the temple, I am indifferent as to whether you marry monogamously or polygamously.” But such a conclusion cannot be reached, for he persists in actively and severely restricting polygamy despite the presence of temples in our midst.  Absent a commandment from the Lord to practice polygamy given through his mouthpiece the prophet, a member of the Church would be excommunicated for attempting to practice it.  The illegality of polygamy in the United States is not really the issue here, for such an excommunication would take place even if the Church member were living in a land where polygamy was a legal practice according to the law of the land.  Even if polygamy were to be legalized in the United States itself, the Church would still excommunicate members in that country who attempted to practice it, unless the Lord issued the required commandment through the prophet to practice it.  There is no greater spiritual punishment the Church can mete out against an offender than excommunication.  God persists in making a strong discrimination between monogamy and polygamy, even in the context of the restoration of all things.

            Why?

            We assert that Doctrine and Covenants 132 parallels Jacob 2 and serves as a detailed exposition and affirmation of it.  Let us see how this is so.  The same historical question serves as the catalyst for section 132 as it did for Jacob 2: What are we to make of the practice of David, Solomon, and other great patriarchs of old having many wives and concubines (D&C 132:1)?  This time the inquirer is Joseph Smith--he who had previously translated the Book of Mormon, including Jacob 2.

            This inquiry is again met by a setting forth of the general principles of marriage in the new and everlasting covenant, followed by a more specific explanation of the lawful exception of polygamy.  Hyrum M. Smith’s commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants states, “The Revelation is divided into two parts.  The first, comprising vs. 3-33, deals mainly with the principle of celestial marriage, or marriage for time and all eternity; the second, comprising the remaining verses, deals with plural marriage." [7]

            It is not until the second half of the revelation, starting with verse 34, as Smith and Sjodahl note, that polygamy is addressed.  Before the Lord begins his discussion of polygamy, he introduces the case of Abraham.  The Lord begins by explaining that because of Abraham’s righteousness in receiving “all things” by “revelation and commandment,” Abraham “hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne (D&C 132:29).  As a result, Abraham’s seed will “continue” and will be “as innumerable as the stars” (D&C 132:30).  A key element of Abraham’s righteousness was to enter into the “law,” which provides for “the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself” (D&C 132:31).  The law referred to here is the law, or general principle, that the Lord has been expounding up to that point: marriage in the new and everlasting covenant, or temple marriage.  And again the Lord warns, as he did in verses 3, 17, and 21, “Enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.  But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham” (D&C 132:32-33).  Entering into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (temple marraige) is a requisite of exaltation for all, including Abraham and Joseph Smith.

            Finally, starting with verse 34, the Lord turns to the topic of polygamy.  He begins the discussion with a statement of fact: “God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.” In the verses that follow, the Lord will answer the question he then poses: “And why did she do it?” (D&C 132:34). 

            The Lord has apparently chosen to explain his reasoning and reveal his mind on polygamy in terms of a specific analogy between two situations that occurred to one historical man: Abraham.  The Lord’s subsequent explanation centers around an analogy the Lord himself posits between his commandment to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and his commandment to Abraham to marry Hagar polygamously.  In verse 36 the Lord explains: “Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless it was written: Thou shalt not kill.  Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness” (D&C 132:36).  Given the importance of his children having a correct understanding of their Father’s mind on this topic, we cannot believe the analogy was chosen without great care.  God wishes us to see how and why he views the two situations as analogous.  By choosing the story of Isaac to be the analog of the story of polygamy the Lord reveals his mind to us and constraining forever and irrevocably any discussion we, his children, might choose to have on the subject of polygamy.  We must understand correctly why the Lord elects to use this particular analogy or we are likely to seriously err in our understanding of the role and place of polygamy in God’s plan for his children.

            The first and most telling point to note about the analogy is that the story of Isaac is a story of sacrifice.  The Lord is telling us that the term “Abrahamic sacrifice” refers not only to the story of Isaac but applies to the story of Hagar, as well.

            Before the Lord even delves into the analogy, his very positing of an analogy between the Isaac situation and the Hagar situation is revealing.  Of all the possible analogies of sacrifice God has commanded in history (sacrifice of animals, sacrifice of possessions, sacrifice of home and country, sacrifice of one’s own life, and so forth), God chooses the most wrenching sacrifice he has ever commanded to serve as the analogy wherewith to instruct us concerning polygamy: the sacrifice of one’s own innocent child by one’s own hand.  This choice of analogy by the Lord is meant to reveal to us that in the Lord’s eyes the Hagar situation is no light matter or run-of-the-mill sacrifice but rather is like unto the heaviest and most heart-wrenching of all sacrifices he has ever required of man.

            The heaviest sacrifice a person can ever be called upon to make--the Abrahamic sacrifice--is slightly different from other, more common types of sacrifice.  In the Abrahamic sacrifice, we are asked by God to make a conscious choice in a situation in which what he requires of us cannot be regarded as a desired goal from all that we know about God’s laws.  We can all understand how obedience to God’s laws, for example to the Ten Commandments, brings a happier, richer, and more peaceful life.  But what if God were to command us to break his law?  Reason alone would tell us we would lose the happiness and peace that come from obedience to the law.  But the test of the Abrahamic sacrifice is not a test of reason.  It is a test of faith--indeed, it is the ultimate test of faith.

            Remember for a moment what an Abrahamic sacrifice represents.  An Abrahamic sacrifice involves at least three elements found in the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac: 1) God makes plain to Abraham a law (“thou shalt not kill” [D&C 132:36]); 2) God then requires Abraham, an innocent and righteous man, to depart from that law (“sacrifice Isaac”), and the choice to depart therefrom would seem to erase the joy that naturally follows from the law; and 3) God provides a means of escape from the departure from the law (the angel sent to stay his hand and the ram in the thicket; Genesis 22:11-13), which allows renewed joy from being able to live under the law once more.

            With that understanding in mind, let us turn to where we left off in Doctrine and Covenants 132. Remember that in verse 34 we finally begin a discussion of polygamy; we discover that God commanded that Abraham have children (in this case, one child) with Hagar, who was not his wife at the time of the commandment and who was handmaiden to his wife, Sarah.  Abraham took Hagar to wife, thus entering into a God-commanded polygamous union.  Fortunately, rather than leaving us with just this fact, the Lord helps us to greater understanding through the discussion that follows.  The Lord asks “why” this was done (vs. 34), and then proceeds to answer: “Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people.  This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises” (vs. 34). Does this mean that in God’s eyes polygamy is the general law and that he is indifferent between monogamy and polygamy after all?  We will see that this is not what the Lord is saying.

            The Lord’s exposition does not end with verse 34.  To make sense of verse 34 we must view it in conjunction with the remainder of the section, especially the verses that specifically mention Abraham (verses 35-37, 50-51).  Immediately after verse 34 the Lord asks, “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation?” (vs. 35).  If we accept the position that the Lord is indifferent between monogamy and polygamy, this question is a non sequitur, and indeed, the very question itself makes no sense.  How can someone practicing a form of marriage about which God is indifferent be perceived to be “under condemnation”?  God cannot be referring to some type of cultural condemnation by Abraham’s peers.  Remember, we are not talking about Joseph Smith’s time, when polygamy was culturally unacceptable; we are discussing Abraham, in whose time polygamy was commonplace and well accepted.  No one in Abraham’s cultural setting would be condemning him for practicing polygamy, so why does the Lord ask, rhetorically, if Abraham was under condemnation?  The Lord’s question raises a puzzle for us, and to understand it we must look to the scriptures that immediately follow.

            Verse 36 is the key to the puzzle.  In this verse, as noted, the Lord posits the direct analogy between his commandment to Abraham to marry Hagar and his commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.  Remember that in verse 36 the Lord explains: “Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill.  Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.”

            Let us be clear on what is happening in this verse.  The general law that God commands all to obey is “Thou shalt not kill.”  Then, to one innocent and righteous man at one time, he gives a commandment to kill his own son (not a stranger, not a criminal, not an enemy soldier; there is no justification possible for killing one’s innocent young son).  God has commanded something exceptional of this man--something that goes against all that he knows of God’s law and for which he can find no possible justification.  God is asking Abraham to depart from the law that he himself gave Abraham.   He requires of Abraham a sacrifice not demanded by justice and the law.  In this sense, God asks Abraham to perform a Christlike sacrifice in similitude of the sacrifice of God and his own perfectly innocent Son in the Atonement.  Because Christ was perfectly innocent the law could not demand that he suffer and die for his actions.  But Christ chose to suffer and die to fulfill the demands of justice for others.  Abraham and Christ both consciously chose to sacrifice the happiness they were due under the law to bring about a greater good for others. 

            We know from the account in Genesis that Abraham’s choice was felt by him as a sacrifice of happiness; Abraham was not happy to hear the commandment to sacrifice Isaac.  Indeed, we believe he felt great sorrow and perhaps even confusion. [8]   Yet Abraham was determined to obey God, even if great sorrow and grief befell him as a result. Because Abraham obeyed an exceptional commandment of God and departed from the law, it was counted unto him for righteousness.  But that obedience did not turn the departure from the law into the law.  God has never since commanded any person to sacrifice their child.  In fact, God provided Abraham an escape from killing his son, despite the original exceptional commandment to kill Isaac that God himself gave.  In returning to the law (“thou shalt not kill”) after having to depart from it (“sacrifice Isaac”), Abraham felt renewed joy and relief in regaining Isaac.  Though he undoubtedly felt paradoxical joy in submitting to God’s will in all things, Abraham’s joy was not full until the test was over and the escape made.

            Why is the Lord making the sacrifice of Isaac a direct analogy to his commanding Abraham to take Hagar to wife?  We conclude that in this situation, as in the situation concerning Isaac, God commands a departure from the law--something that is, as a general rule, a thing to be condemned by the Lord.  That is why the Lord asks, “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation?” According to the general law, or rule, of monogamy in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage set forth by God himself (and not the cultural norms of the time; see Jacob 2:27), and given that God is not indifferent between the two forms of marriage, Abraham is under condemnation--otherwise the Lord’s question makes no sense.  But the Lord answers his own question in this fashion: “Nay [he was not under condemnation]; for I, the Lord, commanded it” (vs. 35), thus creating the supersessionary but still exceptional “law” of verse 34.  There would be no puzzle and nothing to ask or answer if God was indifferent between monogamy and polygamy.  But if God is not indifferent between monogamy and polygamy, then a puzzle does arise--a puzzle that is answered by the Lord with reference to an obvious case of a commandment by God to depart from the general law and follow a lawful exception.  This is the strongest possible scriptural evidence that Doctrine and Covenants 132 is in complete harmony with Jacob 2, and that, therefore, the general law or rule of marriage is monogamy and the lawful exception is polygamy and God maintains as strong a discrimination between the two forms of marriage in this dispensation as he did in Jacob’s time.

            We can now say why it is that God is not indifferent between monogamy and polygamy: in the Lord’s eyes, monogamy is not a sacrifice, whereas polygamy is a sacrifice. [9]   And we are not talking about just any sacrifice: the Lord tells us that polygamy is an Abrahamic sacrifice, but monogamy is no sacrifice at all, but rather a blessing.  No matter what the human inventory of emotions toward polygamy--joy, sorrow, or joy and sorrow mixed--the most mature and most knowledgeable viewpoint is that of the Lord, who appears to be stating that he views it as an Abrahamic sacrifice.  The Lord himself reveals his mind on this matter through his analogy between Isaac and Hagar. 

            The final aspect of the Lord’s analogy between the Isaac situation and the Hagar situation must not be overlooked.  Since, in a sense, the Lord is inviting us to reason about two Abrahamic sacrifices, we cannot fail to recognize the theme of eventual relief that pervades both.  When Abraham raises his hand to slay his son Isaac,

The angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said: Here am I.  And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.  And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son (Genesis 22:11-13).

            The first Abrahamic sacrifice is brought to an end by the Lord, who relieves Abraham from the exceptional commandment which has caused him suffering.  The paradoxical joy is replaced by the fuller natural joy.  By offering to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham regains Isaac forever.  This is a very important element of any Abrahamic sacrifice: it is always eventually brought to an end by God.   The lifting of the exceptional commandment comes as a tangible relief to the sacrificer, despite the fact that the sacrificer has not only felt suffering but also paradoxical joy in the sacrifice.

            Why does the Lord bring this relief?  We can only reiterate that it is because God is not indifferent between a state of sacrifice and a state of relief, and that all other things being equal, he actively prefers eventual relief to perpetual sacrifice for his innocent children.  Lest we mistake this natural Fatherly preference, Christ asks rhetorically, “Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?  If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:9-11). If the Lord has chosen the Isaac-Hagar analogy with care, then we would expect to see an end to the exceptional commandment in this case as well, which end would bring relief.  Obedience to God’s exceptional commandment to practice polygamy merited a reward for Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, but it did not constitute their reward.


Implications if Polygamy is an Abrahamic Sacrifice

            If the commandment to practice polygamy is a commandment to perform an Abrahamic sacrifice in the same league as the commandment to sacrifice one’s innocent child, some obvious implications result.

            First, we would expect the strong discrimination God makes between polygamy, an Abrahamic sacrifice, and monogamy, no sacrifice at all, will persist through time and eternity.  We do not envision Abraham’s reward in the next life as being a daily trek to Mount Moriah.  We envision his reward as including putting the trip to Moriah behind him once and for all, and his tears from that trip being finally and completely wiped away.  We would expect the same of the second of his sacrifices, polygamy.

            Second, this divine discrimination casts serious doubt on assumptions that polygamy will be the dominant mode of married life in the celestial kingdom.  It also casts doubt on the widespread non-doctrinal belief among Mountain West Latter-day Saints that God will command the Saints to practice polygamy again before the Second Coming.

            Third, it also helps us understand why missionaries are forbidden from baptizing polygamists, even if they reside in countries where polygamy is completely legal.  Members who enter into polygamous relationships after baptism are excommunicated for adultery, even if polygamy is legal in their land.

            We see other things in a new light, as well.  In mortality, when God does command polygamy, he understands it is an exceptional sacrifice by the innocent of the joy that would be theirs if they could obey the law instead, despite the paradoxical joy given to the innocent sacrificer.  Therefore, if his righteous daughters and sons weep because of polygamy--even in times when he commands it--he is not upset at them, but he weeps when they weep because, like Abraham, they are willing to sacrifice and suffer for a time that God’s work of love might be accomplished.  And, like Christ, they willingly make a sacrifice that the law itself cannot demand of them because that sacrifice provides the blessings of eternal life for the many.  Our polygamous forebears in the early Church are due all our honor for the sacrifices they made.

            Since God is not indifferent between monogamy and polygamy for it appears he views polygamy as a sacrifice in similitude of the sacrifice of his Only Begotten Son, then his love dictates that at the earliest possible moment when the exceptional commandment to depart from the law can be lifted, he will do so.   If no greater good can come from a Christlike sacrifice, it becomes meaningless and gratuitous suffering. Indeed, those who desire to practice polygamy in times when God has not commanded it are in spiritual chaos.  That desire would be analogous to Abraham, after hearing the message of the angel and seeing the ram, proceeding to sacrifice Isaac anyway as a testimony of his faithfulness to God.  We can only surmise that from God’s point of view, such an act would constitute anything but a testimony of faithfulness!

            This interpretation casts a completely different hue on the Manifesto and the other statements by President Woodruff printed at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants.  As our readers may be aware, apostate Mormon groups assert that President Woodruff defied God’s will that his people practice polygamy, making a politically expedient, though unrighteous, compromise with secular authorities.  Even some mainstream LDS believe that God himself bowed to political expedience in commanding President Woodruff to have the Saints stop practicing polygamy.

            But if polygamy is indeed an Abrahamic sacrifice from the perspective of the Lord, a vastly different interpretation is possible. Recall the locutions used by President Wilford Woodruff and printed in the LDS scriptures after the first Declaration: “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice . . .The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question . . .”  Who is appealing to whom to stop the practice of polygamy, lest destructions come upon the people?

             The phrasing used by President Woodruff suggests that the Lord’s visions and instruction to President Woodruff to reason with the Saints were signs that the Lord was displeased that the Saints were not pleading with Him to withdraw the Abrahamic sacrifice of polygamy. And why were they not pleading with Him to withdraw that sacrifice?  Because they had ceased seeing it as such. As one of our editorial board put it, “It may be that our turn from our polygamous past is much harsher than most member want to believe, not because they want to hold onto polygamy but because polygamy always caused problems of faith for most people in the church and yet they rationalized it and told themselves ways to make the theology consistent.”  If the interpretation of polygamy as an Abrahamic sacrifice is correct, this erroneous perspective could only be profoundly upsetting to the Lord.


The Mischief Wrought Among Our People

            If we as a culture have lost the capacity to see God-commanded polygamy as the Abrahamic sacrifice God tells us it is, if we have lost the capacity to see that God actively desires there be an escape for the righteous who have obeyed this exceptional commandment, then we have lost something profoundly precious.  We have lost the vision of the greatness of God’s love for his children.  To lose that vision brings “the gall of bitterness,” as Mormon remarked about others who similarly placed constraints on God’s love of the innocent, for we “deny” the “mercies” of God (Moroni 8:14, 23).  If cultural misinterpretations cause the women and men of the Church to mourn over polygamy, either because they mistakenly believe that God is indifferent between sacrifice and nonsacrifice and so no escape from this sacrifice will be provided by God or because they are led to feel that they are selfish and not righteous if they feel pain at the thought of polygamy, then these cultural misinterpretations are actively harming our people.  We then have a duty to root out these cultural misinterpretations from our midst, lest they cause great spiritual mischief (Moroni 8:6).

            And mischief they have surely caused.  The apostate Mormon polygamous cults are but the most observable manifestation—child trafficking, sex slavery, kidnapping, brainwashing, horrific abuse, blackmail . . . the sins of these cults are red as scarlet.  But there are more insidious forms of mischief among mainstream Mormons in the US.  In informal online surveys, up to 80% of respondents, primarily from the Mountain West area, believe that the Church will reinstitute polygamy before or at the time of the Second Coming.  Many also believe—erroneously, for this is not Mormon doctrine--that polygamy is a requirement for the celestial kingdom.  As a result, we find men with celestial lust in their hearts, calculating how many wives they will receive as a reward in the next life, not unlike obsessing over 72 virgins.  Such men see women as “biological vessels” to increase their “priesthood kingdoms,” and not as fully human beings.  On the female side of the aisle, we see good LDS women who cringe at the thought of going to heaven, and admit to themselves they do not want to go there.  I have known women who do not want to marry in the temple, for fear a temple marriage is a one-way ticket to heavenly polygamy in the next life.  I have even known women who have worked very hard not to love their husbands, so their hearts won’t be broken when he takes another wife in the next life.  We also have women who cope emotionally by convincing themselves that God will turn them into completely different beings who will embrace polygamy.

            Who profits from such mischief?  Who is it that laughs at the misery produced?  Isn’t it Lucifer?


What Will the Church’s Position Be?

            By this point, our readers no doubt have guessed what our prediction would be.  Even though the LDS Church will be the butt of jokes worldwide and called utterly hypocritical for so doing, we believe the Church will oppose the legalization of polygamy in the United States.  Polygamy practiced without the sanction of the Lord is adultery, pure and simple, and the LDS Church preaches that adultery is next to murder in the pantheon of sin.  The Church leadership could no more stay silent about the legalization of adultery than it could about the legalization of murder.  It is a pressing moral concern of arguably equal weight to the topic of same-sex marriage. If the LDS Church braved nasty social opprobrium during the Proposition 8 campaign to stand up against same-sex marriage, it would be incoherent not to stand up against the legalization of adultery.  Just as the Lord constrained Jacob to speak out against the Nephites for their adultery in non-sanctioned polygamy, so we would expect to see similar pressure from the Lord in our own time. 

            But, some may ask, why wouldn’t the Church simply remain silent?  After all, if polygamy becomes legal in the United States, some might argue as did the Utah legislature (mentioned at the opening of this essay), that this would give God “wiggle room” to restore the practice of polygamy before or at the time of the Second Coming, which, as we have seen, is a prevalent LDS belief, at least in the Mountain West.  Shouldn’t the Church feel justifiably conflicted about taking a stand, and perhaps therefore remain silent?  If the understanding that D&C 132 explains two Abrahamic sacrifices is correct, this argument will not hold.  The Church is not conflicted over child sacrifice, even though we could argue that God might well extend a commandment to perform child sacrifice to someone in this dispensation, as he did with Abraham so long ago.  Murder is murder and cannot be supported--the Church sets the possibility of future extraordinary commands by God to one side in order in taking this unconflicted stance.  Not only will you go to jail if you try to sacrifice your child on an altar, but you'll be excommunicated, too.  If D&C 132 is correct that there were two Abrahamic sacrifices, then the same reasoning would apply to polygamy. Adultery is adultery and its legalization cannot be supported--leaving to one side possible future extraordinary commands by God.  Not only will you go to jail (in theory, in the US), but you'll be excommunicated for practicing polygamy (even in countries where polygamy is perfectly legal).  Why should the Church’s stance on the Abrahamic sacrifice of polygamy be conflicted, whereas the Church’s stance on the Abrahamic sacrifice of child murder is clearly unconflicted?

            It is hard to believe the Church leadership will feel conflicted at all when this issue is finally raised in the USA.  After all, the Church is no longer parochially American; we are fond of saying we are a worldwide church now.  As a result, the Church has faced the issue of legalized polygamy in countries where our missionaries proselyte. If the Church leadership did feel conflicted over polygamy, we would be baptizing polygamists in countries where polygamy was legal.  We don't, and no exceptions have been made--the legal status of polygamy is simply not relevant to the Church's judgment in this matter. That is because, absent some extraordinary command by God to perform an Abrahamic sacrifice in polygamy, polygamy is quite simply adultery, and the Church views adultery as nigh unto murder in grievousness.  Even if polygamy is one day legalized in the US, we feel you can bet that practicing polygamy will still be grounds for denial of baptism and for excommunication by the Church.  We members may be fuzzy about the whole thing, but we don't think the Church leadership will be fuzzy on this issue at all.  

            So why are the members so conflicted and so fuzzy on these issues?  Our fuzziness may stem from the fact that we (rightly) view pioneer ancestors who practiced polygamy as heroes and heroines, just as we view Abraham as a hero.  At the very same time, it may be emotionally dissonant, painfully so, for us to lionize those who were willing to depart from God’s laws concerning the sinfulness of murder and adultery—even though God required this of them. Or our fuzziness may simply stem from the fact that almost all men would recoil from killing a son, but a significant percentage of men would not recoil from taking a second wife.

            No matter.  What is important is that the Church membership begin to study this out in their own minds and hearts in preparation for new guidance and revelation that will surely come as events such as the Kody Brown lawsuit catalyze the issue of polygamy.  We have been troubled to see some members’ testimonies shake over the Church’s recent stands on same-sex marriage and on illegal immigration.  As a member of our editorial board has put it, “May the faithful be prepared.” 


So What Do Our Readers Think?

            We hope this article has prompted our readers to think deeply about these issues, and we welcome your comments, responses, and reactions.  (Remember to stick to LDS doctrine rather than the many un-doctrinal teachings that exist on the issue.)  Please send in your thoughts, and we’ll publish them in the Fall issue!

 

NOTES:

[1] As explicated in the Canadian court case, polygamy creates an inherently unstable social system, for approximately half of teen boys must be ejected from the group to maintain the sex ratio necessary for men to have more than one wife. The FLDS mandate that men have at least 3 wives, necessitating an even higher sex ratio. Polygamy also engenders great concentration of economic power in the hands of a very few men, making polygamy a profoundly anti-democratic force within society. For example of such concentration of power, Warren Jeffs demanded tithes and offerings from all members, amassing 78 wives and an immense fortune before his arrest. These communities come to resemble pyramid schemes, where those at the bottom of the hierarchy are exploited for their physical labor (teen boys) or for sex (teen girls). The important men of the community do not labor, but live off the fruits of the labor of others. This includes living off the labor and welfare checks of their wives, in addition to living off the wages that should go to the teen boys (but instead are given to the older men). In polygamous communities, men do not support women and children--women and children support men. There's also documented cases of other crimes besides welfare fraud and underage marriage: incest, murder, money laundering, falsification of birth records, and other crimes are also associated with polygamous clans.

Update November 2011: In the Thanksgiving ruling, the Supreme Court of British Columbia specifically mentioned several fo the above as inherent to polygamy. Here are a few of their findings, but more can be found in the full ruling

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm :

[1080] The rights of women and children to be free from physical, psychological, economic, social and legal harms are enshrined in ss. 7, 15 and 28 of the Charter. Interpretations of numerous conventions and treaties to which Canada is a signatory have also recognized the right of women and children to be free from the kinds of harms that flow from polygamy. International human rights law additionally confirms that polygamy is not to be protected by religious freedom, as the practice tends to deprive women and children of their own fundamental rights.

[1081] The AGBC adds that the particular manifestation of religious liberty in this case is unique in a number of respects. The first he describes is this (at para. 277):

This case may be unique in the section 2(a) jurisprudence in that, because polygamy’s harms are most obvious where there is the presence of an external, supposedly binding authority sanctioning it, the religiosity of the practice itself exacerbates the harm. The evidence that has emerged from expert and lay witnesses alike indicates that, the greater the religious fervor with which polygamy is intertwined, the more harmful it can expect to be. This is not so with any other case asserting a religious right to do something prohibited.

[1082] Another is the “zero-sum” nature of polygamy. The mathematics of polygamy when practiced in an insular or isolated religious society dictate that the right can only be exercised by depriving others who share the same beliefs of the same right.

[1172] The Court observed that there are activities that are legitimately prohibited even though undertaken by consenting adults, citing duels, fist fights and incest.

[1182] The Attorneys General have demonstrated a reasoned basis for the apprehension that polygamy (especially polygyny) is inherently harmful to the participants, to their offspring and to society generally.

[1190] My conclusion that there is a reasoned apprehension that polygamy is inherently harmful to the participants, to their offspring and to society answers this submission.

[1214] Avoidance of harm is a legitimate state interest and in respect of polygamy, the state has demonstrated a reasoned apprehension of harm well beyond the de minimus threshold.

[1220] Further, the risks of the social harms associated with polygamy are sufficiently serious that criminalizing all polygamous marriages is not, in my view, a disproportionate response to Parliament’s objective of preventing harm.

1280] Canada’s international treaty obligations, particularly under CEDAW and the ICCPR, include a duty to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women. As part of this duty, the treaty bodies have encouraged member states to abolish polygamy.

[1316] The evidence demonstrates that polygamy is associated with very substantial harms. The prevention of these harms is salutary. Some of the beneficial effects of the ongoing prohibition of polygamy include:

a) Increased per-child parental investment, with the expected increase in the mental and physical wellbeing of children overall;

b) Reduced social strife, conflict and crime expected from more uneven distribution of the opportunity to marry;

c) Reduced average age gaps between husbands and wives, increasing equality in marriages;

d) Reduction in sexual predation on young girls;

e) Reducing incentives for male control over women and their reproductive capacity; and

f) Consistency with Canada’s international treaty and legal obligations.

[1331] As I have concluded, s. 293 has as its objective the prevention of harm to women, to children and to society. The prevention of these collective harms associated with polygamy is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial.

[1350] But, in my view, the salutary effects of the prohibition far outweigh the deleterious. The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times. It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.

[1351] Finally, and not insignificantly, the prohibition is consistent with, and furthers, Canada’s international human rights obligations. In my view, this adds very significant weight to the salutary effects side of the balance.

[1352] To the extent that s. 293 breaches the right guaranteed by s. 2(a) of the Charter, the Attorneys General have clearly met the burden of demonstrating that it is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

[Back to manuscript]

[2] We are indebted to Professor Kathleen Bahr of Brigham Young University for this insight. [Back to manuscript]

[3] Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977), 323. [Back to manuscript]

[4] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., rev. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 577. [Back to manuscript]

[5] This is why polygamous investigators, even if residing in lands where polygamy is legal, cannot be baptized into the Church in this life. Even if the United States of America were to legalize polygamy, members of the Church could not practice it unless the Lord issued a commandment through the prophet sanctioning polygamy among his people. [Back to manuscript]

[6] Some take the words of Isaiah as meaning that God will once again sanction polygamy in the last days. Isaiah predicts a time when “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach” (Isaiah 3:25-26; 4:1). Because of a physical lack of men due to war casualties, women will seek to enter polygamous unions. Indeed, this is a common consequence of devastating war even today: for example, in the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda, it is noted that “There is nothing but widows in this village. There are not too many men. Women share men among themselves to have children. The desire for children is so strong many do not care if the man is faithful. . . There are women here who lost children in the war and they just want to replace them.” (“AIDS Brings Another Scourge to War-Devastated Rwanda,” by James C. McKinley, Jr., The New York Times, 28 May 1998).
           As noted in Isaiah, these post-war polygynous unions appear not to be God-sanctioned, because the women initiate the request (as versus the community receiving a commandment from God’s mouthpiece, the prophet), and the marriage does not involve the God-ordained husbandly support and protection due to the wives in question (D&C 83:2). Furthermore, these circumstances are presented in a survey of the horrible consequences that are the reward of the iniquitous. These women will be smitten with “a scab” on the crown of their heads (Isaiah 3:17) and will be afflicted with “stink” and “baldness” and “burning” (Isaiah 3:24). The depiction in Isaiah 4:1 of seven women taking hold of one man is the final element in Isaiah’s description of the punishment of the wicked. Nevertheless, in addition to such cases of polygamy not sanctioned by the Lord it is possible that these calamities will affect the community of the Saints as well (or that for some other reason which God in his infinite wisdom determines), and that Bruce R. McConkie may be correct when he predicts a reinstitution of the “holy practice” of God-sanctioned polygamy around the time of the Second Coming (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., rev. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 577). But we must remain clear that God is under no necessity to do so as part of the restoration of all things. [Back to manuscript]

[7] This is why polygamous investigators, even if residing in lands where polygamy is legal, cannot be baptized into the Church in this life. Even if the United States of America were to legalize polygamy, members of the Church could not practice it unless the Lord issued a commandment through the prophet sanctioning polygamy among his people. [Back to manuscript]

[8] Elder Harold Hillam suggests that Abraham’s heart wept throughout this ordeal (Devotional given at BYU, June 25, 1996). [Back to manuscript]

[9] Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl concur, explicitly stating that their analysis of Doctrine and Covenants 132 leads them to the conclusion that the scripture indicates plural marriage “is a sacrifice” (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Containing Revelation [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978], 821). [Back to manuscript]


Full Citation for this Article: Hudson, Valerie M. (2011) "Reader's Puzzle for Fall 2011: When Kody Brown’s Lawsuit Reaches the US Supreme Court, Will the LDS Church Take a Stand—and What Will it Be? And What Happens if Brown Wins?", SquareTwo, Vol. 4 No. 2 (Summer), http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleReadersPuzzlePolygamy.html , accessed [give access date].

Would you like to comment on this article? Thoughtful, faithful comments of at least 200 words are welcome. Please submit to SquareTwo.

COMMENTS: 5 Comments and an Update

Update November 2011: The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled on Thanksgiving Day that Canada's ban on polygamy was constitutional. The judge held that polygamy inherently produced harms that outweighed any other consideration. (Interestingly, the BYU WomanStats Project data was used in testimony to justify the ban; see [613] and [614].) The full ruling can be found here:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm

Particular sections of note include:

[1080] The rights of women and children to be free from physical, psychological, economic, social and legal harms are enshrined in ss. 7, 15 and 28 of the Charter. Interpretations of numerous conventions and treaties to which Canada is a signatory have also recognized the right of women and children to be free from the kinds of harms that flow from polygamy. International human rights law additionally confirms that polygamy is not to be protected by religious freedom, as the practice tends to deprive women and children of their own fundamental rights.

[1081] The AGBC adds that the particular manifestation of religious liberty in this case is unique in a number of respects. The first he describes is this (at para. 277):

This case may be unique in the section 2(a) jurisprudence in that, because polygamy’s harms are most obvious where there is the presence of an external, supposedly binding authority sanctioning it, the religiosity of the practice itself exacerbates the harm. The evidence that has emerged from expert and lay witnesses alike indicates that, the greater the religious fervor with which polygamy is intertwined, the more harmful it can expect to be. This is not so with any other case asserting a religious right to do something prohibited.

[1082] Another is the “zero-sum” nature of polygamy. The mathematics of polygamy when practiced in an insular or isolated religious society dictate that the right can only be exercised by depriving others who share the same beliefs of the same right.

[1172] The Court observed that there are activities that are legitimately prohibited even though undertaken by consenting adults, citing duels, fist fights and incest.

[1182] The Attorneys General have demonstrated a reasoned basis for the apprehension that polygamy (especially polygyny) is inherently harmful to the participants, to their offspring and to society generally.

[1190] My conclusion that there is a reasoned apprehension that polygamy is inherently harmful to the participants, to their offspring and to society answers this submission.

[1214] Avoidance of harm is a legitimate state interest and in respect of polygamy, the state has demonstrated a reasoned apprehension of harm well beyond the de minimus threshold.

[1220] Further, the risks of the social harms associated with polygamy are sufficiently serious that criminalizing all polygamous marriages is not, in my view, a disproportionate response to Parliament’s objective of preventing harm.

1280] Canada’s international treaty obligations, particularly under CEDAW and the ICCPR, include a duty to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women. As part of this duty, the treaty bodies have encouraged member states to abolish polygamy.

[1316] The evidence demonstrates that polygamy is associated with very substantial harms. The prevention of these harms is salutary. Some of the beneficial effects of the ongoing prohibition of polygamy include:

a) Increased per-child parental investment, with the expected increase in the mental and physical wellbeing of children overall;

b) Reduced social strife, conflict and crime expected from more uneven distribution of the opportunity to marry;

c) Reduced average age gaps between husbands and wives, increasing equality in marriages;

d) Reduction in sexual predation on young girls;

e) Reducing incentives for male control over women and their reproductive capacity; and

f) Consistency with Canada’s international treaty and legal obligations.

[1331] As I have concluded, s. 293 has as its objective the prevention of harm to women, to children and to society. The prevention of these collective harms associated with polygamy is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial.

[1350] But, in my view, the salutary effects of the prohibition far outweigh the deleterious. The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times. It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.

[1351] Finally, and not insignificantly, the prohibition is consistent with, and furthers, Canada’s international human rights obligations. In my view, this adds very significant weight to the salutary effects side of the balance.

[1352] To the extent that s. 293 breaches the right guaranteed by s. 2(a) of the Charter, the Attorneys General have clearly met the burden of demonstrating that it is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1) Janille Stearmer, SquareTwo Editorial Board

The doctrinal rule is, in most cases, that marriage is between one man and one woman. In special circumstances God has commanded, and rescinded, the practice of polygamy for short periods of time and for specific people. Those who overstep God's specific commands regarding marriage are in violation of God's law and there are widespread personal and social consequences to that violation.The LDS Church promotes the standard of stable homes and families, with a mother and father providing for, protecting, and nurturing children. In most cases of polygamy, today and historically, the practice of widespread polygamy undermines social and family stability.

My initial reaction, as far as what the official LDS church response would be to a legalization of most, if not all, forms of marriage between consenting adults, is that very little will actually change as far as current policy and practice. After all, polygamy and same-sex marriage is legal in many other countries around the world and the LDS Church has maintained the same position on both. I can easily envision, should these forms of marriage be legalized in the US, that the LDS Church would come out with a one or two line statement reiterating the present stance on marriage within the church. No more, no less. The lack of drama alone would deflate many anxious minds, prepared for upheaval, turmoil and editorial loquaciousness.

In my opinion, LDS members are more sensitive about the issue of polygamy and place more emphasis on its historical practice than is warranted. For those of us with polygamous ancestors, we perhaps wonder if OUR ancestors were actually asked, under God's direction, to practice polygamy, or if they were simply following a cultural trend or a doctrinal misinterpretation by their leaders. We honor and revere them, we know it wasn't easy for most of them and, for many of us, our placement in the great LDS pioneer family tree is due to the practice of polygamy. So it can be hard to reconcile our modern understanding with the early practice of polygamy. We often get bogged down trying to understand the eternal organization of families that have been sealed in polygamous marriages, perhaps visualizing some really large mansion in heaven that can hold the entire group. Perhaps we envision the family squabbles and jealousies and insecurities that we endure in our mortality and imagine those will stay with us through the eternities. All I know is that the sealing ordinance is necessary for all people who desire to dwell in celestial glory and progress eternally. If we believe that God took great care with every detail of His creation of this world and our bodies, we must also accept and trust that He will take great care with the details of celestial marriage and eternal progression.

People may point to the recent LDS Church activism regarding California's Proposition 8 as a proof that the Church will not authorize polygamous marriage again in this dispensation. I see the Prop 8 activism as yet another example of God requiring hard things of His people. Covenant people will always be asked to sacrifice, to do very hard things. Standing in defense of monogamous heterosexual marriage on the national political stage, especially within their communities, was very difficult for many LDS members to do. I don't presume to know why LDS Church-directed political activism occurs in some cases and not others, but I certainly observed and felt the outcomes, and I very much doubt it had a whole lot to do with whether or not the LDS Church will change its stance on polygamy if legalization occurs.

Is it possible that some men and women may, at some point in the future, be asked to practice polygamy? I certainly think that is at least a possibility, regardless of whether it was legalized or not in the US. Who am I to put limitations on God? Also, we have an interesting situation with our young adults - young men are not committing to marriage and family, leaving many young women without a husband and children. Would that be a circumstance under which God would reinstate polygamy on a limited basis, publicly or not? I don't know. But we have all received very strong counsel in recent years about marriage and family, so if we do not heed that counsel with more intensity, I wonder what sacrifice may be required of us, or our children?

_______________________________________________________________________________

2) Stephen Cranney, SquareTwo Editorial Board

I think that this is one of those issues that the church will find in its best interest to not comment on due to various potential, but unpredictable implications. For one, there are many countries that the church operates in where polygamy is legal; would the church making a statement here require it to take some sort of a position for each of these other countries?

Second, the hypocrisy accusation would be hard to defend against. Presumably the 19th-century Saints did not want polygamy to be illegal. The argument that it should be illegal in one circumstance but not another because God said so is not considered a legitimate rationale in a democracy. The only way that this would not be hypocritical is if the church somehow took the position that it was okay to ban polygamy in the 19th century, and that we simply accepted the legal ramifications for our actions. But then the church would open up the floodgates of making official "should have" statements about the past, and that would just lead to a lot more demands and stress for those at North Temple Street. In sum, I think making such a statement would lead to more problems and headaches than it's worth.

People often malign organizations by pointing out issues that they failed to make an official statement about, but this is a disingenuous rhetorical tactic, since it would be onerous for organizations to make an official statement about every political event that they disagree with. If they were to try to justify why they did so for one but not for another, then they would be accused of downplaying the significance of the ones that they left out, but the issues that are "too important to leave out" all add up to an intractably large mass of issues.

__________________________________________________________________________

3) John Mark Mattox, SquareTwo Editorial Board

On the one hand, this issue in its political incarnation presents a dilemma for the Church and its presiding councils, inasmuch as public engagement is impossible to avoid.  That is to say, if the Church takes a position—any position—on the legal aspects of the case, it will, as noted in the above article, be charged with hypocrisy from one or another quarter; if it takes no position, the media will probably “assign” it a position—taking one “on behalf” of the Church—claiming to know what the position would have been had the Church spoken publicly on the matter.

On the other hand, the position that the Church takes or does not take is not really the fundamental issue, because the institution of marriage is not fundamentally a political institution.  True, it has been co-opted—for a multitude of good reasons and over the period of many millennia—as a political institution.  (The same can be said for the priesthood, for the Gospel ordinances, for the scriptures and for other things central to revealed Christianity; all of these have been co-opted at various junctures of history for political purposes.)  However, that fact does not change the fundamentally religious character of the institution of marriage, and that religious character persists regardless of political pronouncements.  The position that the United States Supreme Court takes with respect to who can marry whom will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the Lord’s objective “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”  The honest in heart will continue to hear the Master’s voice, they will continue to enter into the institution of marriage in accordance with the divinely appointed pattern, and they will continue to receive, in time and in eternity, the blessings that flow from faithful observance of the marriage covenant.  Those who vary from the divine pattern will commensurately exclude themselves from the opportunities that the Lord offers freely to all, regardless of political persuasion, on condition of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

The United States has been through the establishment and the repeal of the Prohibition.  Neither establishment nor repeal affected one iota the doctrine associated with the Word of Wisdom.  The United States may or may not continue to embrace a tax code that allows the deduction of charitable contributions.  That will not affect one iota the doctrine associated with the law of tithes and offerings.  Moral corruption is visibly rampant, but that does not affect one iota the truths taught in the Ten Commandments or in the Sermon on the Mount.  We are merely witnessing the polarization of good and evil that prophets have long predicted would typify the latter days. 

Rather than try to develop a secular vocabulary that will enable us, as we may suppose, to deal with the world on its own dictated terms, our greatest success will probably derive from honing our ability to communicate, in the sacred vocabulary the Lord has already provided for us, the eternal truths associated with the institution of marriage.

___________________________________________________________________________

4) George Handley, SquareTwo Editorial Board

It is probably fair to say that for most members of the LDS faith the link between gay marriage and polygamy was never terribly clear, but it certainly was in the minds of many non-LDS Prop 8 supporters who saw gay marriage as the first of a series of inevitable changes in the definition of marriage that would eventually include polygamy. This was the logic, for example, that the esteemed Catholic thinker, Robert George, used in his address to BYU a few years ago. It makes it especially difficult for LDS to oppose polygamy when it is sought after on religious grounds, not only for historical reasons but because of the church's recent stance on Prop 8. Following prophetic guidance may be the only way through this confusion, but it will still remain confusion until we come to a clearer understanding of the meaning of polygamy in our own history and doctrine. It proved then and it may still prove now to be one of our most challenging tests of faith. The good news is that tough tests of faith, as such, often serve to make us hunger for and more receptive to greater light and revelation.

____________________________________________________________________________

5) Rachek Zirkle, SquareTwo Editorial Board

With all the uncomfortable uncertainty that surrounds polygamy, it brings a sense of relief to view the subject through the lens of doctrine instead of culture. How easy it is to become distracted from the basics. As Hudson aptly stated, “the legal status of polygamy is simply not relevant to the Church’s judgment in this matter.” Jacob 2 and D&C 132 help us understand that polygamy, without the Lord’s sanction, is a grievous sin akin to adultery. Therefore, we can anticipate that the leadership of the Church would speak up in defense of righteousness. Most likely without a firm stance from the Church, the media would assume the Church’s position would be for legalizing polygamy based on the appearance of history. Such a quick-handed assumption would be incorrect. 

I also believe it is important for Church members to understand God’s view of polygamy instead of what the world has made of it. I would like to suggest that an Abrahamic sacrifice cannot be one sided. In Genesis 22, the chapter where Abraham went forth to sacrifice Isaac, the chapter heading states, “Both father and son yield to the will of God.” While we may not know the exact age of Isaac at the time, we do know that he was at least old enough to converse with his father. We also know that Abraham did not conceive Isaac until he was a hundred years old (see Genesis 17). That makes Abraham no spring chicken at the time the Lord asked him to sacrifice Isaac, increasing the likelihood that Isaac could have overtaken his father to avoid being sacrificed. Yet Genesis 22 speaks of no such struggle, instead it speaks of both yielding to the will of God. Further extending the analogy of Abraham and Isaac to polygamy, we could then assume that polygamy likewise is a joint sacrifice by all involved.

I think some of the real mischief and harm that is done by the worldly view and practice of polygamy is that it has become a one-sided sacrifice, where women are forced to share (usually without a voice) while men get extra lovers or more women to do their bidding. And this is not a ridiculous notion, because without the sanction from God making polygamy an exception with holy purposes, that is exactly what it would be. Polygamy is not going to ring true if it is being used for the benefit of one (man) at the heartbreaking expense of others (women). Without the joint sacrifice, would polygamy not leave God’s daughters asking the haunting question, “Am I not enough?”  Furthermore, the absence of a mutual sacrifice would leave men who engage in polygamy in the ultimate state of the ‘natural man’, where lust, pleasure, and wealth become the driving forces for more. Yet the natural man is an enemy to God, so we must believe that those individuals that God has asked to live polygamously are not like the men the media portrays who take pleasure in having many women. The idea of a mutual sacrifice changes the context. It asks us to perhaps stop and ponder, for men and women, what state the heart would have to be in to righteously participate in an Abrahamic sacrifice, namely polygamy.