I grew up in the mainstream LDS Church. Warren Jeffs did not. He grew up in what is called the "Fundamental Latter-day Saint" or FLDS sect. The group, and others like them, were treated as oddities among the faithful LDS like myself, who were taught when growing up that polygamy is something reserved for the afterlife, maybe, and couldn't be practiced in this life. Jeffs, on the other hand, was taught what Joseph Smith taught and what all the early LDS prophets taught: polygamy is a basic tenet of the LDS faith and practice.
To me, the Warren Jeffs of the world were oddballs who never made it into the twentieth century. And the people like Jeffs, people like myself, were those who did the straying away from the truth. And yet we both claimed to love and revere the same founding prophet, Joseph Smith. Interestingly, Jeffs and I are the same age. I grew up denying polygamy; he grew up embracing it. I grew up in the shadow of "continual revelation", a belief that allowed polygamy to be moved to a future afterlife. Jeffs grew up in the shadow of his father-prophet, who clung voraciously to everything the current LDS faith had taught us to deny.
I now feel like I owe Warren Jeffs an apology. He was breaking the law of the land, yes. And he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, and he isn't. He is languishing in prison. But by the same token, to act as if he somehow violated the LDS teachings is simply wrong. He wasn't. He was merely carrying them on when the main body was running scared.
To understand why I say this, we have to go back in time. For me, while growing up Mormon, polygamy was something we didn't hear about until our adult years. Of course, there was no internet back then, so it was much easier for the LDS Church to keep things under wraps.
We did, however, get a hint of polygamy in our Seminary studies in the Doctrine and Covenants:
"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching on the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines-
Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
For behold, I reveal to you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter my glory.
For all those who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world..."
It's a very lengthy revelation and goes on to say that the covenant was instituted for the glory of God and that if the people don't abide by it, they'll be damned (emphasized twice to make sure people got the message, I guess.)
What's interesting is that Joseph's revelation also nullified existing marriages by saying that all "covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or expectations" that were not made according to the "Holy Spirit of promise" (aka, LDS Temple Sealing) are of "no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection of the dead." In other words, a regular, legal marriage that non-Mormons have isn't any good in the hereafter because, after all, the participants aren't sealed in the special ceremony called "sealing".
While this didn't nullify legal marriages per se, it did open the door for "eternal" abuse. And indeed that happened! The text goes on to indicate that refusal to enter into polygamy (aka "the new and everlasting covenant") could result in serious eternal consequences, such as missing out on godhood:
"....and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."
Smith was nothing if not verbose. He could easily have summarized it, or made a Cliffs Notes revelation by simply saying: "Look, if you don't marry as a polygamist in the way we tell you to, you won't become a god after you die". But then, that might not have sounded holy enough for his contemporaries.
So here we are. Two kids, the same age, growing up in the same religion, loving the same prophet, raised to believe that Joseph Smith's words were sacrosanct, and yet, because of how we were raised to perceive the application of D&C section 132, we came to two different conclusions about polygamy as adults. Warren Jeffs and I shared a belief, and yet, we did not.
I didn't know any polygamists when I was growing up. I had heard they existed, but because I lived on the east coast of the United States, and not in Utah or other states surrounding Utah, we just didn't hear about them existing in our day. And they weren't talked about with us little kids in the church at all. The first time I even heard about it, some kid in elementary school who knew I was a Mormon asked me how many Moms I had. I went home crying because he was teasing me about how many women slept in the same bed with my Dad. But the word polygamy was never used, and Mom told me to "just ignore the ignorant".
It wouldn't be until Seminary that I would hear about polygamists who claimed to be Mormons. Up until then, we didn't talk about section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and even then, it was a historical past, not in the present. Instead, we were told, those practicing it today were outside the mainstream of the Church and disobeying the current Prophet and Scripture.
We were also told that the revelation bringing back polygamy was introduced by Joseph Smith, but only in writing. I'm guessing that the Seminary teacher was only going by what the curriculum guide told him. Either that, or it was never clearly explained why it was introduced, and the teacher made some assumption when he said it was not practiced until they reached Utah and were under the leadership of Brigham Young.
Years later, I would find out that the Seminary teacher didn't tell us the accurate story. Whether it was the official teaching for youth, or whether the Seminary teacher was interjecting his views, I will never know for sure. Though he was a good and honest man, and so I believed him.
I also believed him when he told us the reason for polygamy was that there was a shortage of men and an overabundance of women. And that women back then needed a man to take care of them and protect them. And that, of course, God had directed it, so it was all okay. The lesson was a one-time mention, however, and it was never mentioned again.
Later on, in both Gospel Doctrine class and Temple Preparation class, polygamy would come up again. The validation for the practice, we were told in both, actually came from the Bible. When I asked about the condemnation of polygamy in the Book of Mormon, I was told the Book of Mormon only condemned the "unauthorized practice of polygamy". The reference in the Book of Mormon can be found in the book of Jacob, where the Nephites were practicing all kinds of "whoredoms" including polygamy, and they are told by God through Jacob:
"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord...Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this [sic] people shall do like unto them of old" (Jacob 2: 24 & 26).
Again, though, the condemnation in the Book of Mormon, we were told, was because it was unauthorized. In other words, if someone in authority says it's okay, it's okay. Even if your book, inspired by God Almighty, condemns the practice.
For the most part, we were pointed to the Old Testament for validation of the practice. Abraham did it. Never mind the fact that the practice resulted in a feud between the Jews and the Arabs that would last until this very day.
David was another one pointed out as an example. Though described as a "man after God's own heart", however, David made mistakes and sinned. When David got involved with another man's wife, for example, it resulted in the sin of murder and the punitive death of his son with Bathsheba. Later, his polygamy would result in the rape of Tamar by Amnon, both fathered by David and who were step-siblings to one another. Amnon would be killed by Solomon. Tamar would live the rest of her days alone.
Other mentions of polygamy in the Bible would involve wicked kings like Abijah and Lamech, the descendants of Cain who followed Cain's wicked path. And then we have Solomon, supposedly the wisest man ever, who wasn't so wise when it came to women and polygamy. It ended up getting him into marriage and concubinage ways with women who were not of his faith, which in turn ended up having a bad effect on his relationship with God.
The bottom line is that while God allowed these men to sin and delve into polygamy, God never said it was okay to do so. God's design for man was outlined in the Creation. One man. One woman. Had God intended for more women to come to the party, He could easily have created extra females. But he didn't.
And if that's not enough evidence, when Jesus addressed the issue of divorce, Jesus didn't point to multiple wives, but rather, a one-to-one construction:
"'...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,' And said, 'For this, cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'"
Note that he didn't use the term "wives" but wife. Same as in Genesis. God's perfect desire is for women and men to complete one another without "extras" on the sidelines. There are also passages in the New Testament that clearly state that a man in a leadership position should only have one wife ( Ephesians 5: 22 - 33). So, while the Bible nowhere says "thou shalt not take multiple wives" examples of the practice show that a) the practice never seems to have good results; b) it's practiced by heroes of God at their lowest point and by wicked men; and c) it's not given as an example as part of God's original design.
None of this, however, was ever taught to us. And so, when confronted with polygamy in my Junior High years by some smarty pants Methodist who found out I was Mormon and asked me if I knew who my Mother was, I remember answering: "Of course, I know!" Only to have the kid inform me that he was surprised that I knew, given that my Dad had more than one wife.
I was stunned and angry. That afternoon, I asked my Mom if Dad had another wife stashed somewhere. When she asked me what in the world made me ask such a question, I told her what happened. My Mom's classic and regular advice was to "ignore him" because the kid teasing me was ignorant.
Dad, on the other hand, gave me the skinny on the matter. He said the early Mormons were forced into polygamy because the Gentiles (the word we used to use for non-Mormons) were killing off the men, leaving the women alone, often with small children, and no income or means of support.
"The practice of polygamy was restored to help the sisters," he said. "The reason we don't do it today is that we don't have to."
It was probably a good thing that I didn't go read section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants closer, or I might not have accepted his explanation. It would probably have raised more questions, such as:
1) Why was Smith even asking about polygamy in the first place if he hadn't already had it in his mind to engage in the practice?
2) If, as the D&C says, everyone who has it revealed to them must practice it, why did the Church stop practicing it? Better yet, why excommunicate those today who openly practice it?
3) If it was a "new covenant" in Joseph Smith's day, how did King David know about it?
4) And if it's supposed to be everlasting, why hasn't it lasted?
5) Is everyone who doesn't practice it going to be damned?
6) If a man marries a woman but it isn't within the guidelines of Section 132, does that make his marriage of no effect?
By the time I got into Seminary in the 1970s, there was a little more discussion about the practice, but not a whole lot. It would be brushed over with more focus given to the Manifesto of 1890, which officially ended the practice (so they said). I don't recall anyone asking what happened to the women who were in polygamous marriages once the Manifesto went into force. And, to my recollection, the Manifesto of 1904 wasn't even touched on in classes.
The Manifesto of 1904 came about because the Manifesto of 1890 didn't work. People living in parts of the US and Mexico continued to practice polygamy. And the marriages that were to be dissolved were not. Well, at least the women weren't left destitute. Or were they?
A current television show glorifies polygamy aside, polygamy isn't the happy institution the LDS Church tried to make it seem. To begin with, there's something about the nature of most women that, when it comes to their man, they simply don't like to share him. Call it jealousy if you want to, but I believe this is God's ingrained instinct from the Creation of man and woman.
In 2014, I went on a mission trip to the Manti Pageant in Utah. Every year, the LDS Church holds pageants in specific locations, usually attached to a temple or historical spot, wherein segments of the Book of Mormon and the founding of the LDS church are reenacted. It's a missionary tool they use to bolster the "faith of the Saints" and draw in potential converts.
At this pageant in 2014, I portrayed one of the wives of Joseph Smith. Each one of us dressed in period costumes and told the story of our character to those stopping to question us. I played Nancy Winchester, one of the teen brides of Joseph Smith. My character was only fourteen or fifteen years old when she married Smith just before his death. After Smith died, she remarried to Heber C. Kimball. Nothing like getting passed along like furniture, right?
My character never said whether she was happy being married to Smith. But other wives did talk about it. For example, when Emma Smith, the first wife of Joseph, found out about Fanny Alger being married to Smith, she pulled a Sarah to Hagar thing:
"Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house"
(Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows my History, citing Historical Record, Vols V-VIII, pgs 233, 942).
In other words, Fanny was pregnant and, as Sarah did with Hagar, Emma ran Fanny off. But Emma would eventually give in under the pressure of Section 132 of the D&C. This does not mean Emma was happy about it, and, in the end, when the LDS Church split after the death of Joseph, Emma would routinely deny that the practice was ever done.
Zina Jacobs was another woman Smith approached for a polygamous marriage. Her response was less than thrilling:
"O Heaven! Grant me wisdom! Help me to know the way. O Lord, my God, let thy will be done and with thine arm around about to guide, shield and direct..."
Zina turned around and married a guy named Henry instead. Smith, however, was never dissuaded. Unwilling to take no for an answer (nor to respect boundaries), Smith continued his pursuit and, within a few months, made her an offer she couldn't refuse:
"[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother saying, 'Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish the principle upon the earth I should lose my position and my life...the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.'"
Talk about pressure! Marry me or else I die, literally! And from no less than an Angel! She went on:
"When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriage...I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in this church... I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman by those I dearly loved...It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years."
I cannot fathom having to make that decision. Here she was, married to one man, and another man, Joseph Smith, puts pressure on her to marry him lest he die. In essence, Smith was pressuring her to commit adultery! Is it any wonder she felt she would be seen as dishonorable? Blind obedience to Joseph Smith saw her living with Henry, but not as a husband and wife ought to live. That she saved for her part-time husband, Joseph Smith. Poor Henry was a cover.
Remember David and Bathsheba? And how he sent Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, off to war to get killed so he could have an affair with Bathsheba? Smith sent Zina's husband, Henry, off on church "missions" so that Smith and Zina could carry on their relationship. The only difference between Henry and Uriah was that Henry survived. But the polygamous relationship eventually took its toll on Henry, who, despite it all, bore no animosity, even after Smith's death:
"...the same affection is there...But I feel alone...I do not blame any person...may the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham...all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph" (Letter from Henry Jacobs to Zina).
I remember sitting in the Temple Preparation class when the topic of plural marriage in heaven came up. My husband immediately voiced his objection, saying that it was hard enough to handle one wife and he didn't want more wives.
Besides, he added, "She's my only love!"
The Elders' Quorum President was there and responded with: "You don't have to [marry more than one], but when you're in the Celestial Kingdom, you'll probably change your mind."
In a 2006 statement about polygamist sects, the LDS Church disowned Warren Jeffs, stating that he wasn't a Mormon. In a strange twist, it seems members of the LDS Church are also not Mormons since the application of the term to its members and the church itself has been effectively banished.
The article then stated that the Mormons don't practice polygamy and that there's no such thing as Mormon Fundamentalism, or a "Mormon Sect" (online source: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/polygamist-sects-are-not--mormons,--church-says ).
The condemnation of Warren Jeffs seems, at best, hypocritical and, at worst, dangerous for LDS women who, for now anyway, are enjoying the benefit of monogamy.
What is it that the LDS leadership objects to with Jeffs and others, who believe that Section 132 of the D&C is still in force?
Is it the idea that they both believed themselves to be modern-day prophets?
Is it that Jeffs and others like him believe in practicing "continual revelation?"
Is it that they both married teenage girls? Smith and Jeffs, both marrying a mother and her daughter?
Or that they married women who were already married to other men?
Is it the notion that, as long as something is revealed by a leader in authority over them, it must be okay?
Or is it simply that it wasn't revealed through the "mainstream leadership" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Citing from the LDS official newsroom article:
"...the Lord's people is monogamous [sic] unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions".
In other words, Mormon women better not get too comfortable with monogamy. Things could change at any time. And with same-sex couples garnering marriage "rights" and the push for acceptance of Shariah marriage (Muslim polygamy is allowable under Shariah), it could very well happen sooner than people think.
In 2013, a Utah judge ruled Utah's ban on polygamous cohabitation was "unconstitutional", though the law banning polygamy was still in force in Utah.
For now, however, the principle has been relegated to the far land of Celestial Glory. A man can be sealed to more than one wife. The other way around is not allowed, though. Given that this would help out men who died single, one would think a little gender equality in the Celestial Kingdom would go a long way. But I suppose "proxy marriage" could take care of the problem.
This brings me to my final brush with LDS polygamy. By this time, we had already decided to leave the Church as a family. We either all went, or none went to the local Ward. The majority ruled. It was a unanimous vote.
George and I had sent a letter to the Stake President requesting our names be removed. We heard nothing. We ended up framing another letter that wasn't as nice as the first one. We sent copies to the Stake President as well as out to Utah. One morning, while the kids were in school and George was at work, there was a knock at the door. It was the Elders Quorum President.
John and his wife had been friends of ours. We had gone fishing on the piers together. John was just rough enough to get along with George. Claudia and I also got on quite well. We would often joke about our rough-around-the-edges husbands, with Claudia apologizing for John's "colorful language". So when I opened the door and it was John standing there, I was about to welcome him inside when I saw the look on his face and a document in his hand.
"Are you happy doing this?" John asked.
"No," I responded. "Not really. It's not what I intended, but it's for the best."
"I know George will never come back to the Church. He isn't that kind of guy," John said.
"You're right," I responded. "And I don't know yet if I will come back, either."
"Well," John said, " if you do, know that I would be willing to have you sealed to me".
I guess it would have seemed chivalrous were it not for the fact that we had all gotten along so well. Something welled up inside me, and it was not a sense of gratitude. It was more like indignation. How DARE he talk about marrying me away from my husband? How DARE he suppose that I would betray his wife this way? Did he think I was so desperate to take such an offer?
I grabbed the paper and slammed the door. Peeking through the hole, I watched as John walked away. It would be the last time I would see either John or Claudia again.
As I came to learn more and more about Joseph Smith's dalliances into polygamy, as well as those of other LDS leaders that followed him, the more I came to realize that the excuses could no longer excuse the inexcusable.
The excursion to Manti in 2014 is a time I will never forget. As I stood there in a make-shift period costume, wearing a slate sign designating which wife number I represented, I had a chance to talk with Mormons from around the world. Some listened intently to the story. Others just waved me off as they walked by. And one flipped me off.
But there was one young couple that stood out and is still in my thoughts and prayers today. The girl couldn't have been more than twenty-one or twenty-two. She was young, fresh, and clean-cut. Very all-American and had been raised LDS all of her life.
As she stood there with her fiancé, a young returned LDS missionary, they held hands and listened to the narrative of the life of my character. The girl wanted to approach closer, but the fiancé kept pulling her back. I could hear her saying to him: "What harm could it do?"
She won out and got closer, asking me what I was doing. I explained that I was with a particular group whose goal was to educate the public about the many wives of Joseph Smith. The young returned missionary-fiance chimed in, quickly hitting all the bases: there was a shortage of husbands and an abundance of women, so they had to do polygamy; some of the women were widows without prospects; polygamy came as a revelation from God; Moses, David, and Abraham did it, etc. The entire time, the young girl looked at him with adoring eyes and a sweet little smile.
Sometimes, when someone is rattling off, it's best to stand silently. And I did. Once he spent his verbal energies, I turned to her and asked her:
"Since polygamy is revealed, if the Chruch reinstates it, would you be willing to share this young man, the love of your life, with another woman?"
Up until I asked that question, she had been nodding in agreement with him. But suddenly things changed. It had been personalized for her.
"You can't ask her that!" The young man shouted. I guess he thought he was defending her honor or something.
"Okay," I said. "Then let me ask you. If the LDS leadership reinstated polygamy, would you take another wife?"
The look on her face was precious. There was a fright I had never seen before. But on his face? More like deer in headlights.
Suddenly, he coughed, stood up stiff as a board, and said:
"If the Lord says I should, then I will!"
Had this happened a couple of centuries earlier, I would have mistaken this young man for Joseph Smith himself.
Yet my heart was broken because of his neglect of the feelings of a young girl he claimed to love. She looked up at me, her eyes open, and big tears rolling down her cheeks. The shock of one of the ugly truths of Mormonism had hit her.
And I think this is what happens to so many of those of us who left the church. Up until the day John knocked on my door, the ugly truths of Mormonism's polygamous past had not hit me. I knew about it and excused it and even embraced it as being a principle limited to heaven.
But the thought of my current husband bedding another woman, while claiming to love only me? The idea of it happening never dawned on me. Until the day John came by. And it was probably the same for this young woman hearing, for the first time, that the man she loved would be willing to be with another woman.
I cannot imagine being able to separate my heart, soul, mind, and body from my husband to share him with another woman. We are part of one another. It's two shall be one, not thirteen shall become one.
As of this writing, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still eschews polygamy. However, they have relaxed somewhat. With the 2022 Respect Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) came this official announcement:
"We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding" ( https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement ).
But that isn't all that has changed. What was once criminalized is no longer a criminal act when limited to consenting adults:
"In 2020, the Utah Legislature passed a law to decriminalize polygamy, reducing bigamy among consenting adults from a third-degree felony, punishable by prison time, to an infraction on par with a speeding ticket" [US News, April 24, 2020]
According to one of the sponsors of the bill:
"Anyone who still commits bigamy, the traditional sense of bigamy where they're married to someone and they go fraudulently marry someone else, that's a third-degree felony. Or if they try to coerce someone into purporting to marry them? That's also a third-degree felony. We also kept a second-degree felony for anyone who engages in bigamy and also commits other crime like fraud or sexual abuse, things like that."
I doubt that Warren Jeffs will ever read this. But if he does, I want to make a formal apology to him. My arrogance in judging him, and other followers of Joseph Smith, who have, and still do, practice polygamy, was hypocritical given the history of polygamy in the Mormon church. Jeffs was only following the example of the Prophet he was taught to revere.
In making this apology, I am not saying the Jeffs did the right thing. He did not, from either a biblical or a legal viewpoint. God had a reason for creating one man and one woman. The two were to complete one another. Simple as that.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.