WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE?

(This article is drawn from the final section of a paper by Gregory L. Smith, M.D.)

I have long believed that inside some of the hardest doctrines, deep inside them, are some of the greatest truths and the most precious principles. But these are not to be discovered casually or irreverently. Obedience actually brings both blessings and additional knowledge…
- Neal. A Maxwell

When all the history available has been discussed and dissected, we are left with the question: why did the early Saints practice polygamy? The simple answer seems the best: they did it because they believed that God commanded it.

This historian, and even the believer, may consider this answer vaguely unsatisfactory. The follow-up question begs to be asked: why, then, did God command it?

Humility demands that we acknowledge that unless God or His servants tell us why something is done, we are only speculating. At the same time, God has always struck me as the ultimate multi-tasker—He accomplishes many things with a single act. It may well be that multiple outcomes were intended. What follows is a brief speculative mention, in no particular order, of some of the many “accomplishments”
of plural marriage.

Obedience

Obedience is a notion that is out of fashion, especially among the self-proclaimed “intellectual” critics of the Church. Yet, obedience remains a fundamental doctrine of the gospel of Christ, and plural marriage was an opportunity to show where one’s loyalties ultimately lay:

They believe in men and women being married only until death doth them part. That is a very cold affair. We do not believe in being married for time only. We believe in making covenants for eternity, and being associated with our wives and children behind the veil. We have received instructions from the Lord in regard to these things, and we are desirous to carry them out. (John Taylor, Polygamy and Prostitution, etc)

Simply learning obedience in all things has its merits, despite such a curriculum’s unpopularity among the secularists.

“Raise Up Seed”

God never introduced the Patriarchal order of marriage with a view to please man in his carnal desires, nor to punish females for anything which they had done; but He introduced it for the express purpose of raising up to His name a royal Priesthood, a peculiar people.
- Brigham Young

The Book of Mormon’s general condemnation of polygamy is frequently mentioned by critics; its exception to this condemnation is less frequently noted: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” Clearly, one theological function of polygamy could have been to “raise up” groups of people that would be faithful to God. As Doctrine and Covenants 132 explains:

Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them. This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself. Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; 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. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

Thus, descendants from a covenant people may have been part of polygamy’s purpose. This scripture also confirms our supposition that plural marriage played multiple roles, since righteous posterity is important, “among other things.”

Some Church members have presumed that polygamy was thus designed to ensure a larger number of descendants than would be possible under monogamy. This need not be the case: polygamy was, as we have seen, an effective tool for "winnowing." Any family willing to make the sacrifices attendant to plural marriage were unreservedly dedicated to the restored gospel. Children raised in such an environment can have had no doubt, from an early age, of their parents’ convictions. This effect can only have been magnified by the fact that most Church leaders were
in polygamous unions.

Plural marriage served, therefore, to train a "peculiar" generation in devotion to their faith, while sparing them the physical persecution of Ohio, Missouri, or Illinois. The
Saints were faced with the question of where their ultimate devotion lay: to Church or country? To God or man? To revelation or convention? Plural marriage cast that choice in stark terms which could not be avoided, and the early members did not shrink from the choice.

Sociological

[T]he institution of polygamy was the best thing that ever happened to Mormonism, and polygamy’s suppression at the hands of the federal government was the next best…
- Douglas H. Parker

The Church’s practice of polygamy became public knowledge in 1852. Organized only 22 years prior, the Church was a young, little understood, and often reviled faith. It drew converts from New England, Canada, Scandinavia, England, Scotland, Wales, and elsewhere. Sometimes not even sharing a language, it was necessary that this mix of new members be molded into a solid, enduring social group.

This was accomplished via two means: geographic isolation in the Salt Lake basin and marital practices that were odious to most Americans.

Geographical isolation had become necessary for the Saints’ safety. Yet, as Terryl Givens has demonstrated at length, there was little aside from their theology which
separated the Saints from general American society. Polygamy served as the perfect dividing line between "Gentile" and "Zion" America. The Saints remained relatively isolated until the coming of the railroad to Utah; by this time their status as a distinct religious and social "culture" was assured, given that they had spent most of the past half century in conflict with the U.S. government over polygamy. Furthermore, intensification of the "polygamy war" in the late 1800’s ensured that the arrival of the railroad did not lead to sudden assimilation.

We do not have to look far to discover the fate of a religion without the twin isolators of plural marriage and geography: the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This break-off from the Utah "Brighamites" initially shared most of the other distinctive LDS doctrines, including a belief in Joseph Smith’s prophetic call, the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, and a need for a restoration. Yet, today the RLDS Church–now "Communities of Christ"–has little to distinguish it theologically from mainline Protestantism. Theologically, they were steadily absorbed into the American "mainstream," while the Utah Mormons have retained their separate theological identity, despite joining the American cultural mainstream.

However, it was equally important that plural marriage eventually cease, for similar sociological reasons. Even if Utah had successfully given legal protection to plural marriage, it would have stunted Church expansion and growth into other areas. Canada is a good example of a country which moved swiftly to implement anti-polygamy statutes upon the arrival of Mormon colonists. Canadian law even
went so far as to name Church members as specific legislative targets. Polygamy had served its sociologic purpose by the turn of the century, and world-wide expansion became more feasible with its discontinuation.

Abrahamic Test

We complain sometimes about our trials: we need not do that. These are things that are necessary for our perfection. We think sometimes that we are not rightly treated, and I think we think correctly about some of these things. We think there are plots set
on foot to entrap us; and I think we think so very correctly.
- John Taylor

No impartial study of the Saints’ sacrifices during the polygamy period can fail to impress us with their devo tion. Doctrine and Covenants 132 acknowledged at the
outset that what was being asked was a staggering sacrifice: "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."

The command to sacrifice Isaac is one of the most provocative passages of all scripture. It likely holds little interest to the modern humanist except as a case study in religious excess. Even modern Christians–in or out of the Church–perhaps pass over it too glibly. We seem almost over-anxious to reassure ourselves that God didn’t really intend for Isaac to be sacrificed, and then hasten to draw parallels with God’s sacrifice of His Son.

In our haste, however, we miss the fact that God’s sacrifice of Christ had a coherent theological rationale, while Abraham received no such justification. Knowing the end of the story, we derive comfort from the ram in the thicket, while Abraham had no such comfort. Latter-day Saints who believe that Jehovah rescued Abraham from being a sacrificial victim himself should also appreciate that the
sacrifice of Isaac demanded that Abraham renounce what was doubtless a cherished tenet of his faith: "no human sacrifice."

As the philosopher Sren Kierkegaard described it, in his stimulating study of this scripture, "all was lost, more terrible than if it had never been! …Through a miracle [God] had made the preposterous come true [by Isaac's birth to the aged Sarah], now he would see it again brought to nothing."

Kierkegaard puts his finger squarely on the key issue:

What is [generally] left out of the Abraham story is the anguish; for while I am under no obligation to money [which I am asked to sacrifice], to a son the father has the highest and most sacred obligations… Abraham’s relation to Isaac, ethically speaking, is quite simply this, that the father should love the son more than himself…a temptation is [usually] something that keeps a person from carrying out a duty, but here the temptation is the ethical itself which would keep him from doing God’s will.

Nor should we attribute this doctrine to a mere Old Testament caprice, as Jesus made clear. The Saints were asked to put everything on the altar. For them, "faith was a task for a whole lifetime, not a skill thought to be acquired in either days or weeks." They were not asked simply to part with their sins and foibles, to which anyone might bid a none-too-fond farewell. Beside these offerings they were to then lay their good name, their reputation for moral rectitude and honesty, their civil rights, and their place in American society. Not only must they abandon the false doctrines of the sectarians, but they must appear to renounce cherished principles of monogamy which were viewed as the well-spring of civilization. And then they were later required to discontinue the practice for which they had given so much. The insight of Helen Mar Whitney is appropriate to this point:

Those who have not the knowledge and assurance that the course which they are pursuing is according to the will of God, cannot endure all these afflictions and persecutions, taking joyfully the spoiling of their goods and even if necessary to suffer death, by the hands of their foes. They will grow weary and faint and fall by the way unless they have unshaken confidence and a perfect knowledge for
themselves. They cannot make a sacrifice of their character and reputation; and give up their houses, their lands, brothers, sisters, wives and children; counting all things as dross, when compared with the eternal life and exaltation, which our Savior has
promised to the obedient; and this knowledge is not obtained without a struggle nor the glory without a sacrifice of all earthly things. In the last days (we read) the Lord is to gather together his Saints who have made covenant with Him by sacrifice and each one must know that their sacrifice is accepted as did righteous, Abel and Abraham the father of the faithful. Every Latter-day Saint knows this to be true, and that according to our faith so are our blessings and privileges.

At its core, polygamy asked the Saints to put their "money where their mouths were." Was Joseph really a prophet, or not? Did prophetic authority persist? Could God truly speak by divine, unmistakable revelation to each individual? Was God’s voice truly sovereign over all institutions, and in all circumstances? Were they confident that they could discern that voice, even–or especially–when something contrary to their expectations was demanded?

The Saints’ actions answered in the affirmative. I do not envy the ethical extremity in which they found themselves. I am humbly reverent, however, before their moral
maturity. Their example makes me uneasy–not because I think I will be asked to resume plural marriage, or because I am troubled by their choices. But, all believers must ul timately mimic Abraham on Mount Moriah. What good must I ultimately leave on the altar, while rejoicing in the only Good?

(Visit Gregory L. Smith’s full article at Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions About the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)