Thinking About Plural Marriage

In response to a YouTube video by a channel opposed to the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in particular as it regards plural marriage (aka polygamy) the following comment was posted:

@gaileaton7121: "This podcast helped me to find some peace about the practice of plural marriage. With all my heart I believe that plural marriage was and is wrong and is an abuse of women, but I’ve come to believe that Joseph Smith believed he was doing the right thing because he was so fixated on the “restoration of all things”. Through these first two podcasts I understand better why the brethren are reluctant to tackle this issue head on. One day perhaps they will because God is at work in the world. Thank you."

I replied to this comment as follows:

I appreciate your feeling of unease in regards to plural marriage. I love being married; and I love my wife. May I never be called upon to have any more! But it happened that the question of "What would you do, if..." came up with both my present wife and my late wife. Both of them said that though they weren't keen on the idea, if called upon, they would obey the Lord and accept a sister wife. And while the idea of dividing my love and care between two wives would be the greatest mortal challenge I feel I could face, I would be reluctantly obedient. In a sense, trying to divide up my love as a husband between two wives seems very much like it would be an abuse of a man.

A man I know was married in the temple to his wife and they had several children together. When he was about 40, she died after a bout with cancer. Before she passed away, she suggested that he remarry and gave him a few suggestions of women whom she she felt would make good stepmothers to her children. One of them was a young woman who had babysat their children from time to time over the years and who already loved their children. After his wife did pass away, and after a decent interval, he hesitantly approached each of them to get to know them. The only one who responded positively was the former babysitter, now about 20. They married in the temple, she raised the rest of the children to maturity, and together they had four more. Now I ask you, if plural marriage is a false principle, who gets him in eternity? Which one is to be turned out of the mansion? Who gets to be separated from her beloved husband in the eternities? Which of the children must be cut off from their father?

And what of Russell M. Nelson and his second wife, Wendy?

In my own case, as I mentioned above I have a late wife. She died of cancer also, and before she passed she told me that she didn't think I would do well as a bachelor (I was 63). She suggested two single sisters in our ward as possible second wives, both of whom were temple marriage eligible (not previously sealed to a husband). They were both fine women, but I ended up finding a temple-married widow and marrying her. So I was not in the same situation as my friend mentioned above. I'll be giving her up to her eternal husband in the end. But I could have been temple-sealed to two wives.

According to D&C 110:1-4 the only ones who can enter the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom must have entered into "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" -- meaning temple sealing. If plural marriage is a false principle, what happens if there are unequal numbers of males and female who would otherwise be eligible for exaltation? Some must necessarily, and for no fault of their own, be excluded from the highest degree. My reason for accepting that plural marriage is a true principle is that there will definitely be more of one sex than the other who are worthy of that highest degree. My reason for accepting that there will be fewer males worthy of it than females is that God instituted plural marriage in mortality. If that is how He instituted it, then He instituted it that way because He knew there would be more women worthy of exaltation than men.

---

Back to Writings