When I was a Mormon back in the 1970s, the official teaching on plural marriage was clear enough; it was the order of heaven. When it was abandoned by the Mormons in 1890 it was simply a temporary suspension because, ‘We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.’ LDS 12th Article of Faith. In other words, we obeyed the law – for now.
Nevertheless, there would come a day when the practice would be
re-established and the order of heaven restored. That was because the standing order of marriage was polygamy. Without polygamy a man or woman simply couldn’t reach the celestial kingdom of God. Brigham Young preached:
‘The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy...I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart, and I know it is from God—I know that he revealed it from heaven; I know that it is true, and understand the bearings of it and why it is. “Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?” If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted.’
Joseph F Smith rejected any idea of plural marriage being ‘non-essential’:
‘Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false.’ – Joseph F Smith, 5 times married with 45 biological children, 6th Mormon president, and Joseph Smith’s nephew
Yet, today the story is very different. Monogamy is now the standing order, and plural marriage a ’superfluity.’ In their topics section on their official website, the Mormon Church gives a very different explanation for polygamy, making it an historical peculiarity that God commanded in limited, specific cases, although nobody in the prophet-led organisation could tell you why:
‘We believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is God’s standing law of marriage. But at various times throughout history, God has commanded certain people to practice plural marriage. In the Bible, for instance, we read about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others who were told to take multiple wives. Though we don’t know all of the reasons God might command people to practice plural marriage, one reason mentioned in the Book of Mormon is to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30)—or to increase the number of children born in the covenant.’
‘The Lord did not reveal His reasons for restoring plural marriage. However, the Book of Mormon, while prohibiting polygamy generally, explains that God sometimes commands it in order to “raise up seed unto [Him].” Plural marriage among the early Saints did result in the birth of many children into faithful Latter-day Saint families in a relatively short time. This helped to strengthen the early Church, and many Latter-day Saints today can trace their roots to those families.’
Catch-22
Here we come up against the Catch-22, the singularly slippery question of Mormon authority. Mormons believe they are led by apostles and prophets. They have a canon of scripture, comprising four books: the Bible; Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. These carry the same authority for them as does the Bible for the rest of us.
When challenged about difficult issues, such as polygamy being preached and practised by early Mormon apostles and prophets, they appeal to these ‘standard works’ as ultimately authoritative. Whilst it is true that early Mormon leaders typically taught and practised plural marriage, it can, at any time, be dismissed as not normative because it isn’t in the books.
This effectively means they work from a closed canon while claiming an open canon. I referred to this in an earlier post as The Brigham Young Problem. Here are the conflicting claims of this Catch-22. You must believe one claim in order to believe the second but the second prevents you from believing the first.
In this case you are expected to believe in the absolute authority of apostles and prophets because it is through the ‘restoration’ of these that we get an open canon. However, whatever these apostles and prophets teach can be dismissed if the teaching doesn’t square with a canon that is effectively closed.
Is plural marriage an eternal principle, or a temporary and inexplicable practice?
When church leaders taught plural marriage, and at some length, were they speaking with the authority of apostleship, or contradicting ‘scripture’ established by other apostles and prophets?
When the Mormons today give entirely different explanations for historical plural marriage, characterising it as of its time, are they contradicting earlier apostles and prophets by appealing to a closed canon?
The essay I referenced could not be described as ingenuous, speaking such that there is no honest explanation. I am led to think that if a Christian apologist was to come up with as many contradictions, obfuscations, and excuses, any Mormon worth their salt would immediately jump up and make the case for the restoration of apostles and prophets to bring greater clarity. But how has that worked out for Mormons?
‘All Scripture breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.’ 2 Tim.3:16,17
Best stick with the Bible then, eh?
Comments