5 Reasons Most LDS Polygamy Discussions Are Completely Missing The Point!
One of the fiercest debates in the broader LDS/Mormon zeitgeist right now is about Polygamy/Polygyny/Plural Marriage.
Frankly, the topic is a complete historical mess.
You have some people accusing Joseph Smith of being an adulterer and a sexual predator.
You have others vehemently defending Joseph, saying that the historical records show no predation or manipulation.
You have some people pointing out that the last Thus Saith The Lord revelation given by an LDS prophet was from Wilford Woodruff in 1889 about not forsaking plural marriage, and that the church has been under condemnation from God ever since they caved to pressure from the federal government a year later, which we will need to reverse course on to regain the Lord’s favor.
You have others saying Joseph was never even in involved in the process as he and Emma always stated publicly and it was a false tradition brought in by Brigham Young after he orchestrated Joseph’s murder and Joseph was heavily gaslighted to excuse Brigham’s cult-leader behaviors.
But then you have descendants of Emma Smith saying she was pressured by her second husband to publicly deny the practice after the fact.
Like I said, it’s an historical mess.
And all these cases made by the peoples and groups who propose them are ALL compelling in their own way, especially to those who aren’t willing to spend hundreds of hours doing their own historical research, and are therefore inclined to believe whatever fits their belief system most comfortably.
Truthfully, we cannot really know the true history from these contradictory accounts because none of us now were alive then and there.
We can guess.
We can speculate.
We can form a hypothesis we think most likely.
But we cannot truly know until God reveals to us the truth of all things.
Basic epistemology, the philosophy of learning/knowledge, says we can only truly know things that we experience for ourselves. Everything else is hearsay and belief.
So why, then, has the topic of plural marriage become so important?
Well, primarily, for three reasons.
First, the modern LDS church’s own claim to authority from God rests upon the idea that each of their church presidents have, in turn, been living prophets, in much the same way that the Vatican claims Peter was the first pope, and that their current pope has the same authority.
Second, the doctrine of the modern LDS church still upholds plural marriage as a heavenly standard; ie, a man who marries a second wife after becoming a widower is considered to have them both in heaven.
Third, in the same way that the LDS church had to (essentially) cave to public consensus and give blacks the priesthood in 1978, and herald both policies, disallowing it and re-allowing it, as revelation from God, the LDS church will have to, in the next decade or so, concede to either or both of the traditionalists and progressives in our increasingly polarized society and proclaim it revelation.
This will either come in the form of reinstituting plural marriage, ordaining women, or performing same-sex marriages.
(It is even possible they might do all three in the above order to try and maintain their middle-of-the-fence position.)
Their very claim to authority as a church and ongoing revelation from heaven requires some action be taken.
In this light, the only historical position they can really take on the plural marriage issue to save some face at this point (and keep the largest amount of their membership from leaving) is the idea mentioned above that the church leadership caved to government pressure in 1890 in an attempt to “be good citizens" and protect the membership and temples.
This is because any other option throws Brigham Young (and the church’s claim to succession of authority) under the bus.
Of course, they will still need to wait until they have a new “prophet”, claiming to be the Lord’s new mouthpiece, in order to make such a change.
They will then need to bring back plural marriage into active practice in countries where it is legal and advocate publicly for its legalization in countries where it is not.
Although, to be fair, that could be as simple as a new, updated “Proclamation to the World” on marriage and family.
(They will likely also claim that the very same-sex marriage legislation they fought against a decade ago has pioneered the way to allowing plural marriage once again in Western countries.)
Suffice it to say, the entire plural marriage question is rarely adequately addressed in LDS discussion forums because the question is intricately wrapped up into the legitimacy of the modern church itself.
And the logical and doctrinal fallacies in a strictly Brighamite view of polygamy are a major reason women are leaving the church, and by extension Christianity.
And obviously that’s a problem.
So, what I really want to do here today is get far beyond the Mormon-centric arguments and talk about the Christian polygyny from a broad, forward-thinking perspective.
Now, I’ve already shown in previous articles that polygyny is undeniably biblical, especially when you dig into the Hebrew and Greek.
But what does that mean? Does it apply to us in these last days? If so, how?
Many LDS will claim right off the bat that anything they disagree with in the Bible is a translation/interpretation error. Me proving biblical precedent here will not change hard hearts or stiff necks.
So, what is the bigger picture?
(To clarify, I don’t currently have a horse in this race. I have one wife. We are happy. I am not courting a second one. I don’t have any other agenda here than seeking for the will of God, and consequently; the good, the beautiful and the true.)
Without writing a whole book on the details, here is my best logical and spiritually-guided understanding of the topic right now.
Just as Jesus told us to discern true and false prophets by their fruits, and Paul told us to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true, properly measuring the actual fruits of a biblical pattern of plural marriage requires discernment and looking at actual sources of truth.
(Anything presented to me by propaganda sources, such as Hollywood or news media, will be treated with near-zero credibility, because that is what they have earned.)
As a philosopher, I don’t think in black and white terms. That would be fallacious thinking.
There are things that I know; things that I have experienced for myself, and that I can testify of, and provide additional evidences for.
There are things I believe are probably true on a preponderance of evidences.
There are also other things I believe are either likely, possible, unlikely, or about which I have no idea.
One of the reasons I believe the Bible is the word of God is because the more I understand the world, the more true the Bible seems to be, and the more I understand the Bible, the closer I get to God.
I have thousands of little evidences that tell me there is truth there.
Likewise, when I look at different varieties of evidences I see from creation, human nature across cultures and the Bible (all of which to me are proven sources of truth, when understood in context), I see consistent patterns of good fruits.
I see that essentially all animals gravitate to a polygynous family dynamic centered around a strong male. (Certainly, any farmer will tell you that the key to maximizing offspring revolves around getting the right ratio of males to females.)
I see that a monogamy-only culture is insufficient to protect and provide for all women and children, that God permits plural marriage specifically at different times and places in history, especially to provide for the widows and the fatherless, and that no government system has improved things by restricting good men from marrying multiple women.
Now, this is obviously not to say that all men are even capable of having multiple wives, particularly in our modern feminized culture.
If we use Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy of male types, only Alpha-, Bravo- and Sigma-type males, which make up 15-25% of men, are even capable of protecting and providing for multiple wives at the same time, and likely not all of them will even want to.
(This also balances out nicely with the general percentage of men that virtually no woman feels comfortable marrying. The biggest reason women are primarily single mothers/alone is due to the quality of man. Allowing women the option being additional wives to good men, can rectify this societal imbalance.)
Looking at actual fruits, I have yet to find credible evidence of polygyny being damaging or dangerous to a particular group or tribe.
Just the opposite, in fact.
A society where women are free to choose to be additional wives to strong, desirable married men with the best genetics, instead of settling for Homer Simpson-types, not only allows the stronger leaders in the society/culture maximum offspring, but sets a higher standard for men, because the bottom of the barrel will not marry at all until they get their crap together.
After one becomes familiar with identifying patterns of propaganda and historical gaslighting, one will usually begin finding false narratives where they didn’t even know there was anything to hide.
If you found evidence of a grand deception by the elites to destroy the practice of biblical plural marriage across the West in the last 200 years, that should make any truth-minded living man or woman question whether it is actually far superior to what we have now.
My personal research into elite bloodlines and the way historical narratives have been altered and propaganda introduced after the 1811 Reset to destroy Christendom, destroy the family and establish a Satanic New World Order have painted a pretty clear picture that one of the first things the elite class ordered us of the slave class to do (that they didn’t do themselves) was to ban both polygamy and marrying our cousins to keep our bloodlines strong.
They have continued to do both of these things, both openly and in secret, while promulgating lies about both practices leading to a whole slew of societal problems, when the opposite has proven true.
The entire Victorian Romance genre was created to sell us on this false idea that men and women are no different in a marriage, and that high class women get to have wealthy men fight for them while all these other unmarried women get to be old maids and governnesses and school teachers, etc. (This deception was a direct precursor to modern feminism and the dissolution of the family.)
In reality there were a huge amount of displaced single women and orphans all throughout the 1800s as anti-polygamy laws were put in place all across the West.
This wasn’t just a “Utah thing".
My wife’s great great great great grandfather who settled the Australian Central Coast in the early 1800s had 4 wives.
You see all these orphan characters and orphanages in 19th century books and the elite want you to believe they were all the illegitimate children of prostitutes, but they’re hiding the truth.
All these families were forcibly broken up by the growing Beast system, intentionally displaced to hide the true history of Christendom, and mix up our lineages and remove our heritage claims to land, and to sell their evolutionary lies.
I have a natural skepticism for any religious narrative and/or interpretations of scripture that go exactly along with the elite agenda for the slave class.
The fact that biblical plural marriage has been so consistently mocked and dramatized and mischaracterized in Hollywood media as splitting up the family, while divorce and degeneracy and pride (which does exactly that) has been so heavily pushed, has to make anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear wonder at why a strong Christian man married to multiple women is such a threat to their agenda.
In order to achieve their globalist communist agenda, the UN Beast system relies heavily upon the Hegelian Dialectic; that of creating problems and offering specific solutions that forward their agenda.
Avoiding these agenda requires building alternative solutions.
In my own attempts to philosophically troubleshoot widespread modern societal problems, such as sex trafficking (most of whose victims nowadays fall through the cracks of government systems, child services, homeless shelters, etc.), and the looming fertility crisis, etc., the holistic answer to everything keeps coming back to ridding the federal government of 99% of its power, and establishing small, culturally homogenous, self-governing, self-sufficient homesteading communities with shared religious (ideally biblical) values.
Many such communities will naturally end up having polygyny, as that is the biblically prescribed solution for widows and orphans.
This is the most anti-Beast, anti-globalist solution possible. I have yet to hear anyone present a better biblical alternative.
Some people have tried to say that small communities in and of themselves are the solution, but they are neglecting the bigger picture in favor of comfortable solutions.
It is not good for man to be alone. This is the first thing God looks at of his Creation and says “not good.”
Is it good then for woman to be alone?
I actually think it’s worse for women to be alone. Single women tend to become overly masculine because they have no safe environment to embody their natural femininity.
Simply having a good community or church or financial support system is not sufficient as a solution in providing every woman with a husband, and every child with a father.
And, yes, sex should be part of it! Because sex is the physical symbol/embodiment of marriage. Without the sexual union between man and woman, there is no “one flesh”; there is no marriage.
When God first places conditions upon the taking of additional wives in Exodus 21, he specifically says it shouldn’t inhibit the existing wives’ food, clothing, or frequency of sexual intercourse.
Biblically speaking, sex is a physiological need, and is good in God’s eyes, because it is part and parcel of men and women “not being alone”. God just wants family commitment behind it.
4. Future Projections
As I have already stated, biblical plural marriage is a workable solution to many current and looming problems in the world.
The elites don’t want us to have it in our society, because it strengthens families and communities and builds a lasting legacy. This is why it was always forbidden to the slave class in Ancient Rome and Greece.
In just three or four generations, Mormon polygamists in Missouri have more than filled an entire county.
The current positives of the state of Utah are a direct result of the plural marriage of the 19th century.
I see a 50% chance Christ is coming back in the next 20 years, but I can make scripturally-based arguments that it is still 200 years, or even 2000 years (that the 2×1260 day period actually represent 2×1260 years, and we’re currently approaching the middle point of the tribulation).
Do I think it is most likely? No. But it is compelling. I can’t discount it as a valid option.
And when you realize that we may just be another group of Christian martyrs in an ongoing repeated cycle of good vs evil that may go on for another thousand or more years before Christ comes (especially if, as some have suggested, reincarnation is a function of Christ’s salvation allowing everyone repeated chances to have their baptism of fire and second anointing in this life) then one really needs to consider what they want for their posterity and by extension the world.
I know for myself, growing up, that false certainty Christ was coming in my lifetime, because it was the only logical answer to the information I had, led me to tremendous ambivalence about all the problems in the world.
I was incredibly passive about the state of the world, just waiting on and praying for Jesus to come fix everything, never supposing it was on me to help create the future I wanted to see.
Well, I was operating under multiple false paradigms when I believed that. And waking up to so many deceptions has taught me that I can’t think like that.
For all I know about the past, Jesus could actually have died 450 years ago in France, the Nephites in the Book of Mormon were actually killed off in the American revolutionary war, which was actually the beginning of our enslavement (the reverse of what we’ve been told), the Vatican added 1500 years to the calendar, the man Moroni (not an angel) handed Joseph the plates personally, and we are currently living in the prophesied apostasy or falling away period.
And I could write an entire book making that argument and it would be compelling.
So I can’t just read a few isolated verses of scripture and say, this is my two or three witnesses, I believe this now.
I say, here’s a doctrinal hypothesis, I know that God is a God of order, and the creation bears witness of the Creator, where does the preponderance of evidence lead me?
5. A Preponderance of Evidence
If I take the complete scriptural picture, the complete picture of nature, the complete picture of history that I can see, understanding everything I do about the way things have been and are altered, and apply all my God-given logic and reason and discernment for truth, where does that lead me?
So far, until I’m given way, way more evidence to the contrary, it leads me to the understanding that Biblical plural marriage is an extension and expression of the natural differences between men and women in a relationship that embodies/mirrors/typifies the relationship between God/Christ and his people/churches. A culture that permits strong capable providers to have multiple wives and many more children would be far superior to what we’re living in now.
Could it have been used by some to oppress women, sure. But it is a tool, like a gun, like the internet, that can be used for tremendous good or ill in society.
In the same way there are horrible monogamous marriages, there can be horrible polygamous situations. But that is because of individuals and their actions, not the idea of Christian plural marriage.
The based part of the black community is beginning to rapidly realize this, and solving their single motherhood crisis themselves, and I just don’t see the evidence that God forbids or disdains or punishes it.
I see monogamy as the general rule, but polygyny as preferable to having single women and widows and orphans in our society.
All the Mormon-centric arguments about it are far too insular. They lead to polarity, not truth.
People are not thinking big-picture enough in general nowadays, and it is by design, because it leads to them falling for the lies of the transhumanists when they talk about the future as though they are somehow more intelligent and what they are offering is somehow more desirable.
Those of us who have woken up to the truth, those with eyes to see and ears to hear, see that whatever the elite are offering, the opposite is what we ought to want.
And that is why, as we break the spells of the modern era and re-embrace our God-given masculinity and femininity, that we should all be open to polygyny as a necessary and even desirable solution in our society for the future.