Lesson 31 - "Sealed...For Time and All Eternity"

Reading assignment: 131:1-4, 132, OD1 and the additional addresses there. In section 132 we will particularly focus on verses 1 through about 36. 

Today we read section 132 and can see a clear break between verses 4-33 talking about eternal marriage and verses 34-66 talking about plural marriage. In the 19th century they did not see eternal marriage and plural marriage as two different things, they saw celestial marriage. As we look at 19th century sources it becomes difficult to tease out the difference we now understand between the two. Today we might believe in a straightforward concept of eternal marriage and the sealing ordinance. It was not that straightforward for the Saints in Nauvoo. History never fits into nice clean little boxes with bows, no matter how much we try.

The introduction for section 132 has changed. The additions to the new edition of the scriptures are highlighted here: 

We'll start with the end--"Evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831." 

Joseph revealed the concept of eternal marriage in degrees. I think it likely he was likewise learning in degrees. At the 1835 Kirtland marriage of Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight he taught those present about the Lord's doctrine of marriage. Lydia said Joseph's face shone as he taught.  Though we do not know exactly what Joseph taught, Newel wrote about his teachings, “Long, long has the world been shrowded in gentile ignorance & superstition, but the shackles are beginning to be blown away lik[e] the Summer threshing floor & light & intelligence to be given the Children of the kingdom.”  In 1840, Parley P. Pratt wrote, “It was from [Joseph] that I learned that the wife of my bosom might be secured to me for time and all eternity; and that the refined sympathies and affections which endeared us to each other emanated from the fountain of divine eternal love.” In 1842 Joseph signed a letter to Emma, “Yours in haste, your affectionate husband until death, through all eternity forever more.” Joseph began performing sealings in Nauvoo around that time.

Verses 18 &19 of 132 give us the requirements for eternal marriage:

1. Sealed in the temple by the proper authority.
2. Sealed and ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise. The ordinance alone is not enough for it to last.
3. Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection (ye = plural)--a couple sealed up together, coming up together.
4. If ye abide my covenant. The big if.

Though baptisms for the dead began in Nauvoo, temple work by proxy, endowments and sealings, did not occur in Nauvoo--though Joseph likely taught the possibility. The Saints initially believed those ordinances needed to be performed in mortality. The Saints worked to connect themselves in networks of kinship. Sealings, adoptions of sons, and plural marriage all became part of this.

The rationale that plural marriage was instituted because of a proliferation of widowed women, simply does not work. Once again--it does not work. It would be very helpful for us, if a number of years ago when President Hinckley said that only 3% of the church ever practiced polygamy he would have qualified his response. In Manti, Utah, in the 1850s the percentage of polygamous households was upwards of 80%, Salt Lake City was clearly less--perhaps more like 50%, but more information would be necessary to verify that statement. 3% of what?

For many modern Saints sex makes this difficult for us to even begin to wrap our heads around it. I'll paraphrase Kathleen Flake--There are much easier ways to have a lot of sex than marrying multiple people. (Helen Whitney's The Mormons documentary) Accusations of Smith as a lascivious seducer is a simple classification that ignores the complexity of Joseph as a person and the complexity of history. (Later on, Sir Richard Burton, the famed English explorer, visited Utah and wrote that the salacious press in the eastern U.S. had polygamy all wrong, the Mormons were more Victorian than the Victorians.)

We'll start with Kathy Daynes classic piece on polygamy in Nauvoo here. (Please forgive the poor copy--if you'll only read one extra thing, read my summary and read the other article below.) She argues that in Nauvoo accepting plural marriage was a sign of loyalty to Joseph. She argues plural marriages in Nauvoo were not:
1. Marriages of convenience for economic or political reasons.
2. Based on sexual attraction.
3. Based on romantic love.
4. Based on promised companionship.

John Taylor remembered Joseph teaching the Twelve, “You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary that you be tried as it was for Abraham and other men of God, and … God will feel after you, and he will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings, and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 24, p. 197).

In 1843 Lorenzo Snow wrote that Joseph himself waged a battle “in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings.” If we accept their words at face value (rather than some conspiracy to put a respectable sheen on it), plural marriage was initially difficult for all of them. It was not something eagerly anticipated. These were a people with Victorian sensibilities, this went counter to how they understood marriage. The commandment wrenched at their very heart strings and compliance by the Twelve demonstrated their loyalty to Joseph. 

“Some of these my brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin.” -Brigham Young

“It made my flesh crawl.”

All of the 12 “seemed to put off as far as we could, what might be termed the evil day.” -John Taylor

To be precise with our terms:
POLYGAMY – Either a man or a woman has 2 or more marriage partners.
POLYGYNY – Man
POLYANDRY – Woman
Most of what we are talking about here is technically polygyny, though there are also examples of polyandry.

Joseph was sealed to about 30 women during his lifetime--hundreds more posthumously (Wilford Woodruff ended that in the 1890s). In Nauvoo, Joseph only taught his inner circle, principally the Twelve, expecting them to teach larger groups later. Plural marriage always operated under strict guidelines, it was to only be "by revelation and commandment." In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob wrote of the the whoredoms of the Nephites that they justified "because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son." (Jacob 2:23) The Lord did not justify the behavior of David and Solomon, nor that of the Nephites. Verse 30 gives the only exception to this--"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." Monogamy is the standard; polygamy is the exception. Polygamy is only justified if it is commanded by God.

Though many struggled to accept the possibility that God could command plural marriage, many came to ardently believe it was from God. They would fight to maintain their possibility to live their religion.

“The few humble Saints who heard the principle from the Prophet’s lips knew that he was a true Prophet of God, for the Holy Spirit bore witness to them that the principle was from Him, and they knew too that Joseph Smith never would have had the courage to introduce such a doctrine, much less to command men to enter into it whose traditions made it so obnoxious to their natural feelings, if it had not been commanded by the Almighty…”            -Helen Mar Whitney (A Woman’s View, 133).

“We pondered upon [these prin-ciples] continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine.”

[Later...] “And were convinced in our own minds that God heard and approved our prayers and intercedings before Him.  Our hearts were comforted.”      -Elizabeth Ann Whitney

“When the Prophet Joseph Smith first mentioned the principle of plural marriage to me, I became very indignant and told him emphatically that I did not wish him ever to mention it to me again, as my feelings and education revolted against anything of such a nature. He counseled me, however, to pray to the Lord for light and understanding. . . . After I had poured out my heart’s contents before God, I at once became calm and composed; a feeling of happiness took possession of me, and at the same time I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which testimony has abided with me ever since.”  –Lucy Walker

Here Spencer Fluhman tackles one of the most difficult examples, Joseph's marriage to fourteen year old Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, daughter of Vilate and Heber C. Kimball. Read it. Fourteen then was not fourteen today, but it was still very young. After Joseph's death, Helen Mar married Horace Whitney, son of Elizabeth and Newel K. Whitney. Better understanding this specific example gives us a window into their understanding of plural marriage. 

Helen Mar later wrote:

"What other motive than real faith and a firm conviction of the truth of this principle could have induced them to accept and practice a doctrine so opposite to their traditions and the rigid training received from their sectarian parents and ancestors?  Who would wish to become objects of derision, to have their friends and associates turn the cold shoulder, and be subjected to the sneers and scoffs of persons prejudiced by the extravagant tales spread by certain ones who, while professing friendship and faith in the principle, were two-faced and treacherous to their brethren and sisters; the latter, though virtuous and modest in their demeanor, and their motives as noble and pure as were those of Ruth and Naomi, had to silently bear the title of lewd women." Woman’s Exponent 11 (1 August 1882):39.

I always want to know why (and I often find myself guessing the end from the beginning). Rarely does the Lord give a direct answer to the question why....though we try again and again to provide reasons why. In the 1850s church leaders came up with all sorts of reasons for the why of plural marriage--including arguing it stopped men from needing prostitutes (eh). In regard to the priesthood ban, Elder Dallin Oaks said, “... It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. . . .Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies” (Interview to the Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, June 5, 1988). I think this importantly applies here too.

The why that the Lord outlines in revelation is "where safety lies." We might come up with other reasons, but they are man-made and problematic to some degree. In the revelation recorded in section 132, the Lord sets up how the Saints are to understand plural marriage with the example of Abraham and Isaac. "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." (132:36) As it reinforces the concept of commandments and exceptions, it likewise offered a powerful structure to the Saints. This concept of an Abrahamic sacrifice is reinforced  as the revelation continues in verses 49 through 51. An Abrahamic sacrifice is part of the proving of disciples. Plural marriage as part of her proving was devastatingly difficult for Emma. Helen Mar was particularly poignant as she referenced her Abrahamic sacrifice. Yet, there is the promise--"Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham and his son Isaac." "The way for your escape" is the ram in the thicket. Perhaps the ram came with the 1890 Manifesto, perhaps it will come in eternity, but if we trust the revelation--the ram is certain.

For those who believed the plural marriage came from God, their belief became more and more entrenched over forty years as they fought to practice their religious belief. After severe strictures and penalties from the U.S. Government, LDS Church President Wilford Woodruff was faced with the possibility of losing the temples or continuing the practice of plural marriage. Read both the Manifesto--otherwise known as Official Declaration Number 1 (the two declarations have been voted on by common consent and as such have been canonized--in contrast to proclamations which are not canonized and not added to the scriptural text)--and the excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto pages 292 and 293 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Think about the process which led President Woodruff to the revelation and the decision. 

Official Declaration did not have an introduction in the 1981 edition of the scriptures (and subsequent editions). This is only one of the additions in the new scriptures. (If you need a quick review see here.) "This led to the end of plural marriage" is key. Forty plus years of belief in plural marriage as a divine principle was not done away in an instant. Some believed that the Manifesto was only meant for the United States. Some continued in secret. A couple apostles resigned. In 1904 Joseph F. Smith gave a second manifesto to clarify that plural marriage would end for the Latter-day Saints as a whole. The Saints would have to find a new focus for their peculiarity.