Some thoughts on Polygamy
What is a prophet to do if the majority of people are not
yet ready to accept a teaching? Should he announce it publicly anyway, risking
the wrath of violent opponents who will seek to prevent him from teaching anything
at all? Should he teach nothing, and allow the less-faithful to decide that the
more-faithful may not enjoy revelation from God? Or, should he opt for Joseph's
approach--keep the doctrine private, and introduce it as people accept it?
Critics who refuse to believe in modern prophets will find
such a question utterly pointless. But, if we give Joseph the benefit of the
doubt before condemning him, this is an issue which we must confront.
Joseph noted in 1843 that "many seal up the door of
heaven by saying so far God may reveal and I will believe but no further."
As George A. Smith indicated, it is a problem with no neat,
pat solution. “If the Lord had on that occasion revealed one single sentiment
more, or went one step further to reveal more fully the law of redemption, I
believe He would have upset the whole of us. The fact was, He dare not, on that
very account, reveal to us a single principle further than He had done, for He
had tried, over and over again, to do it... He was determined this time to be
so careful, and advance the idea so slowly, to communicate them to the children
of men with such great caution that, at all hazards, a few of them might be
able to understand and obey”
At its core, polygamy asked the Saints to put their
"money where their mouths were." For most of the Saints polygamy was
most certainly not a convenient or welcomed commandment. 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 ultimately
mimic Abraham on Mount Moriah. What good must I ultimately leave on the altar,
while rejoicing in the only Good?
On a certain Sabbath morning, previous to the return of the
Apostles from Europe, in 1841, [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on
the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, so it would be again, etc.45 The Prophet goes up on the stand, and, after preaching
about everything else he could think of in the world, at last hints at the idea
of the law of redemption, makes a bare hint at the law of sealing, and it
produced such a tremendous excitement that, as soon as he had got his dinner
half eaten, he had to go back to the stand, and unpreach all that he had
preached, and left the people to guess at the matter. When the prophet
"went to his dinner," [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, "as it might
be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet's
house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you
have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back
what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a
people." So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according
to Robinson, and said "Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this
morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said."46
Robinson feels that this reaction was not unexpected; yet,
Joseph tried anyway. Note that Joseph does not come back in the afternoon and
deny the doctrine; he merely withdraws it from public consideration. Upon the
return of the Twelve, he would begin teaching it to them. Heber also recounted
the negative reaction of Emma and others:
He spoke so plainly that his wife, Emma, as well as others
were quite excited over it. Seeing the effect his sermon had upon them, he
consoled them in the afternoon by saying that the time of which he had spoken
might be further off than he anticipated.47 While he was thus preaching he turned to the men sitting in
the stand, and who were the men who should have backed him up, for instance, to
our good old President Marks, William and Wilson Law, and father Cowles, and a
number of other individuals about Nauvoo, (for this occurred when the Twelve
were in the Eastern portions of the United States,) and said, "If I were
to reveal the things that God has revealed to me, if I were to reveal to this
people the doctrines that I know are for their exaltation, these men would
spill my blood."48
In 1877, J.H. Beadle, participant in the publication of much
anti-Mormon material during the Utah period,61 wrote: “The Mormons had more trouble with the world before
they adopted polygamy than since...Polygamy will do for a scapegoat, but the
trouble is far more radical than that.62” Despite this, polygamy did certainly help set off the
powder-keg that was Nauvoo.
A real-life example is helpful. Suppose a Church member is
living in Holland in the 1940s. Established laws command the deportation of all
Jews to a grisly fate. A Church member might (as many brave Dutch did) decide
that such a law has no moral force--indeed, it would be immoral to obey it. The
Church member might further decide that he is morally bound to hide a family of
Jews in his attic. One day, an SS team arrives, knocks at the door, and demands
to know if the Church member knows of the whereabouts of any Jews.
The member has several choices:
1. he can decide
that "honesty" is the highest moral value, and reveal the location of
his Jewish guests
2. he can
refuse to answer the question, by remaining silent
3. he can
declare that he is not willing to comply with the request, and will not answer
the question
4. he can lie
to the German SS, and may also have to lie to his friends and neighbors to keep
them from revealing the secret
Which is the correct moral choice? It is difficult to see
how honesty can trump the lives of the Jews--so, option (1) is out. The SS officer
is unlikely to go meekly on his way should one remain silent or verbally refuse
to answer, so choosing either (2) or (3) will simply result in the Jews being
found and the Church member and his family suffering the consequences of their
disobedience to civil law. It seems to me that the most moral
option--fulfilling the member's duty to his Jewish guests, his conscience, and
his family--requires that the member lie to the SS.
There
are apparently sound historical sources that say some extremely negative things
about Joseph Smith and other church leaders that may or may not be true. But
the fact of the matter is that God has to use imperfect people to carry out his
purposes - because we are all
imperfect. The only choice he has is who to use. I thank God that he does
condescend to work with imperfect people because then there is some hope for
me.
From
all that I have read, I am convinced that Joseph Smith was a profoundly good
and decent man. He said “I never told you I was perfect – but there is no error
in the revelations I have received.”
At
the end of the day Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and we either stand with
him or we do not.