It’s been a while. Health problems have occupied my time,
but, hopefully, I’m on the mend and can get back to the story at hand. Two
things before I do that. First, our rootstrek to England was fabulous!
Subsequent posts will contain photos and details. And second, or actually what
I intend to address in this post, are current events that relate to the topic
at hand.
LET ME BE CLEAR! I’m not here to destroy anyone’s testimony
of the “one-and-only-true-church” paradigm or maliciously engage in character assassination.
That is not my purpose! I’m hoping that by using this forum to semi-publicly
(my readership is far from widespread) explore the facts surrounding current
events and share my thoughts and feelings I can better make sense of them. And,
by letting it all out, I can keep it from completely eating me up on the
inside.
It was announced at a press conference on 16 January 2018
that Russell M. Nelson was set apart as the 17th president of the
church. He chose Dallin H. Oaks as his first counselor and retained (though
“demoted”) Henry B. Eyring as his second counselor. All three men have close
connections to Mormon plural marriage. Eyring’s father was born into a
polygamous family in the Mexican colonies, but Nelson and Oaks are both,
themselves, eternal polygamists, having been sealed to second wives after their
first wives’ deaths.
 |
| Dallin H. Oaks, Russell M. Nelson, Henry B. Eyring |
Additionally, both Nelson and Oaks are hardliners when it
comes to LGBT issues. It has long been church policy that all new “revelation”
must be agreed on, voted on, and fully endorsed by the first presidency and the
quorum of the twelve before it can be considered “revelation” and/or doctrine (see Approaching Mormon Doctrine here).
Both Nelson and Oaks have recently and unilaterally declared church-produced
documents and policies “revelation” without due process. Nelson declared the new “Policy of Exclusion” (discussed here) concerning
children of LGBT married couples as outlined in the Handbook of the Church 1
(and leaked online in November 2015) to be a unanimous “revelation” in a
worldwide talk he gave from Hawaii to single adults in January 2016 (here). Apparently,
this was not true. Church insiders have divulged that some of the members
of the quorum of the twelve who vehemently opposed the policy were sent out of
town on assignment when it was implemented (a practice which had begun during
the decades-long debates over the issues dealing with the priesthood/temple ban
for black church members). It was a
hotly-debated policy and was never intended to be classified as a “revelation”
from God until Nelson unilaterally declared it to be so.
In Oak’s last
conference talk (October 2017, here) he declared the “The Family: A
Proclamation to the World” (FP) to be “revelation” from God. Boyd K. Packer had
attempted to do the same thing in his October 2010 conference talk. In
reference to the FP, Packer stated that it “qualifies as revelation by
definition,” but the wording was downgraded in the printed version of his talk
to “a guide.” (here) In actuality, the FP was generated to aid in
the church’s efforts to stop the legalization of gay marriage in Hawaii (more
here) and was never presented as “revelation” until Oaks elevated it to that
status. It’s all very complicated,
convoluted, and political. Suffice it to say, even though I was the organist
and should have stayed to play the closing song, I walked off the stand Sunday before
last amid a re-hash of Oaks’ last general conference talk and went directly
home because I couldn’t bear to listen to one more word. What this indicates to
me is that these two men don’t feel inclined to play by the rules.
And now they’re in charge.
And now they’re in charge.
But back to polygamy.
My mom’s older sister was legally divorced from her “eternal
companion” in the 1970s. Her temple sealing, however, was still in force and
there was nothing she could do to change that. As she began to navigate the second-round
single life in Salt Lake City as a faithful Mormon woman in her mid-50s, she
experienced something she did not fully anticipate. The first question she was
routinely asked by prospective suitors was, “Are you sealed?” When she
answered in the affirmative that was often their only interaction before he would move on
to greener pastures. It seemed the newly-available widowed or divorced men
weren’t looking for a new wife, they only wanted ANOTHER wife. This was
standard procedure. If a woman was already sealed to a previous spouse the men
simply weren’t interested. My aunt was passed on by countless available men
seeking love and companionship due to the fact that she was already sealed to
another.
My mom knew Russell Nelson’s first wife, Dantzel White,
while they were both students at University of Utah. Dantzel died in February
2005. In April 2006 Nelson married BYU professor Wendy Watson in the Salt Lake
Temple. Wikipedia is correct in stating, “Her marriage to Nelson is her first.”
Nelson has the privilege of being eternally sealed to both of his wives.
Dallin Oaks’ wife of 46 years, June, died in 1998. In August
2000 he married Kristen McMain in the Salt Lake Temple. She is about 15 years
younger than he and it was her first marriage. Oaks, like Nelson, is also eternally sealed to two women.
The first seven presidents of the church were all active
polygamists, having multiple wives in mortality:
Joseph Smith – at least 33 and as many of 40 wives
Brigham Young – 55 or 56 wives
John Taylor – 9 wives
Wilford Woodruff – 9 wives
Lorenzo Snow – 11 wives
Joseph F. Smith – 6 wives
Heber J. Grant – 3 wives
George Albert Smith and David O. McKay were both
legally married once and familysearch.org shows them each to be sealed to only
one wife. However, posthumous sealings were removed from view several years
ago, so there could have been other sealings to deceased women performed by
them or on their behalf. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I can’t exclude
the possibility. Joseph Fielding Smith had three consecutive wives (he
remarried following the death of each preceding wife) and according to
familysearch.org is sealed to all three. In his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked: "...my
wives will be mine in eternity."
Harold B. Lee (my uncle’s uncle) remarried
following the death of his first wife and was sealed to both women. He wrote
and published a poem expressing his expectations concerning his eternal
relationships:
My lovely Joan was sent to me: So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
"O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee"
(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17)
Most of the more recent presidents of the church -
Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson
- had one wife in mortality with no known additional sealings. Howard W. Hunter, however, remarried after
the death of his first wife and was sealed to both women.
It’s been 73 years since a practicing polygamist
led the church and 23 years since we’ve had a church president who was
eternally sealed to more than one woman. It's clear that the temporal practice of plural marriage was abandoned, but what about eternal polygamy? Are we supposed to believe it and believe in it? No one has told us not
to, but there has never been any type of official retraction. The best we can
do is apply recently outlined “standards” for determining what exactly
constitutes official doctrine of the church (see Approaching Mormon Doctrine
here).
Accordingly, for eternal polygamy to be doctrinal
it must be found in the canonized scriptures.
We have D&C 132. Check.
However, it must also be “consistently proclaimed in official Church
publications.” Here’s the problem.
If I took the time to do some digging I
could probably find the lesson in a Gospel Doctrine manual in which the teacher
is instructed not to discuss the
practice of polygamy. OK, actually I
looked at one lesson in one manual dealing with Book of Mormon Jacob chapter 2.
Either this is a different lesson than the one I’m remembering or the online manual
has since been changed. At the end of the lesson it reads:
“Explain that the Lord . . . later withdrew His sanction of plural marriage when conditions changed (see Official Declaration 1). Emphasize that the law of the Lord regarding marriage today is the same as it was in Jacob’s day.” (Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Manual, p. 54.)
There is also an essay published by the church
in 2014 entitled, “The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage” which clearly
discusses the events which led up to the abandonment of Mormon polygamy (here).
Further, there is no reference whatsoever to polygamy or plural marriage
anywhere in Preach My Gospel that missionaries
are obliged to teach investigators.
So is the continued practice of plural marriage “consistently proclaimed in
official Church publications?”
No.
But there’s a catch. (There’s always a catch.)
All of these sources (and others) only address the physical practice of plural marriage. We may have abandoned earthly plural marriage, but
eternal plural marriage, apparently, lives on?
Well, according to the "rules", in order for eternal polygamy to be a thing it must be "consistently taught in official Church publications."
Is it?
Nowhere that I can find.
But consider this. Although Gordon B. Hinckley, as
president of the church, “condemned” polygamy as an earthly practice in a 1998
televised interview with Larry King (here), he acknowledged it as a valid eternal
principle at the funeral of Howard W. Hunter’s second wife in 2007 by stating, "They were sealed
under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity,” knowing that the
first wife was sealed to him as well. ("Sister Hunter's humor and
cheerfulness remembered as she is laid to rest," Deseret News, Oct. 22,
2007).
Yeah, that’s pretty hard evidence. But that really
doesn’t tell us if Nelson and Oaks buy in and are planning on co-habitating
with both their wives in the hereafter. I mean seriously, as far as we have
come in trying to understand and protect basic human rights and approach some
semblance of equality among all people (acknowledging that we still have a LONG
way to go), how could two highly educated, savvy, influential men actually
believe that a loving, caring God’s eternal
plan of happiness for ALL of His children even allows for the endless union of
one man and multiple women. Surely not.
In a speech Dallin H. Oaks gave at BYU Provo on 29
January, 2002 Oaks said:
“When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later—a year and a half ago—I married Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side.” (here)
I’ll give you a few moments to digest that.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
“But you’re forgetting about Nelson,” you say, “It
was only Oaks who referred to his second wife as his ‘eternal companion’. We
really don’t know how Nelson thinks about it.”
That’s true. We don’t. But we do know how Nelson
thinks about women. And we know what informs his beliefs concerning the primary
role of women and the reasons for having them around – you know, the thing that
justifies women’s very existence.
In the press conference held January 16th,
Peggy Fletcher Stack asked Nelson a question concerning the role of women (and
others) in the future of the church. In his initial answer, he neglected to
address the question regarding women directly. After being prompted, he
replied:
In the Doctrine and Covenants, there is that verse that says before the foundation of the world women were created to bear and care for sons and daughters of God and in doing so they glorify God.
A careful study of
the D&C proves that there is only one section of scripture from which he
could draw this conclusion. Which section?
Section 132
Yep. The section authorizing polygamy. Here are the verses that explain the context from which he took his statement:
And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. (D&C 132:61-63)
What do we learn from this? We learn that when Pres. Nelson is asked to comment concerning his views of and plans for women in the future of the church, his mind did not go to prophetesses spoken of in the Old Testament such as Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah. Nor did he reference strong women of action discussed in the scriptures like Esther, Ruth, and Abish. Instead, his off-the-cuff remarks were based on scripture in which the Lord authorizes men to be given - as if as property - multiple wives whose primary, God-ordained purpose is to bear children. And, by the way, this is not an isolated incident. Nelson has expressed these sentiments concerning women in many of his addresses (discussed here).
So how is it exactly that we're supposed to believe that Mormon plural marriage ended in 1890?
Oh wait, make that 1904. No, that just ended it in the US so it really
ended in . . . um . . . the year . . .
To be fair, I fully acknowledge that plural marriage
unequivocally ended at some point in time as an earthly practice in the mainstream
Mormon Church. But I believe it’s quite clear that Mormon polygamy in its
eternal form is alive and well in the minds and hearts of our two most powerful
leaders. And I think the implications of that are far reaching and, for me,
extremely disconcerting.
OK. I know what you’re thinking. That old
disclaimer that talks about how the Lord isn’t going to require anyone to live
plural marriage and it’s totally a choice. I’m not even going to bother looking
up the exact quote or who said it. We’ve all heard it. Problem solved.
Except it’s not.
Given that the whole “more righteous women than
righteous men” argument has been debunked (discussed here), is it really OK to even suggest that eternal polygamy is at all necessary or, for that matter, even allowed by God? Like it’s even a thing? When you apply critical thinking, does
that really make any sense?
Let’s think this through.
So, God did make us all unique and distinct and
separate individuals. It could stand to reason that we each need different
things and need to be placed in different circumstances in order to thrive and
be happy. Since relationships are absolutely key to our temporal and eternal
happiness (referring back to the basic teachings of Joseph Smith), God could
allow for different types of eternal relationships that accommodate individual
needs.
So, ok. Maybe.
Well, maybe it could totally make sense if God
respected the unique characteristics of everyone
and allowed and approved of other marriages like. . . um. . . between people
who, through no fault and choice of their own, found themselves solely
attracted to members of their own sex . . .
Let’s just put it here in black and white. According
to the two senior leaders of the church, by direct revelation from God, anyone
who would be naturally inclined to marry within their own gender is in
violation of the laws of God if they choose to do so. Accordingly, they have
two viable options: they can marry someone of the opposite sex (which
statistically has not produced desirable outcomes here) or remain single and alone,
eliminating the possibility of having a close, personal relationship with a
significant other that a long-time Harvard study (here) has found to be the premier
key to happiness and longevity. There is no official doctrine (or policy) of
the church concerning the sexual nature of homosexual individuals in the
hereafter – that they will ultimately be “cured” – so the prospect of eternal
marriage is in no way guaranteed. Search mormonandgay.org and you'll find nothing. Heterosexual women, however, can fully enjoy
the benefits of marriage both in this life and in the next, but apparently there is no
guarantee a woman will have a husband all to herself in the hereafter.
Heterosexual men . . . well . . . do I really have to spell it out at this
point?
Both and Oaks and Nelson have expressed their
great love and admiration for women and have encouraged women to speak up and
speak out on subjects which are concerns for them. However, it has also been
made crystal clear that there is no avenue in the church for women to be part
of any decision making process. According to Oaks, men and only men, as decreed
by God himself, will hold offices in the Priesthood and will act as the
decision-making executive leaders of the church. From Nelson’s press conference
statement and the discussion among the new First Presidency which immediately
ensued, women, by divine design, have been relegated to a one-size-fits-all
existence as baby makers whether or not it suits their needs, skills,
temperament, and inner-most desires. Anything else women choose to pursue to
seek fulfillment or self-actualization should not interfere with this divine
destiny. Further, as also expressed in the press conference, a woman’s value
and success stems from her ability to produce and raise righteous, obedient men
who ultimately earn and qualify for high Priesthood offices and appointments.
But again, back to polygamy.
As stated previously, plural marriage – temporal,
eternal, or otherwise – is not a principle consistently taught in the church
today. But the fact that Oaks believes he has two eternal wives tells a
different story. And when asked to think about women, the fact that Nelson’s
first inclination was to quote from D&C 132 is telling indeed. So, what are
we to believe? What is official church doctrine concerning eternal polygamy?
Who knows.
Certainly I don’t know. And if Nelson and Oaks
know they’re not willing to make it clear in “official Church publications.” It
is mind boggling when you think about all the converts throughout the world who
are sought out and taught by full-time missionaries given the fact that polygamy
is not routine to the discussion. It has no mention whatsoever in Preach My Gospel. Nothing. Nada. If
investigators were to bring it up, I’m positive the standard answer they would
be given is “It’s over. It’s a thing of the past. Don’t worry about it.” But
that’s not entirely true. That’s deceptive. It’s far from over if our two
senior leaders believe they will be living it forever.
Don’t ALL prospective members of the church deserve to know
this going in?
So here is what I do know.
“My house is a house of order, sayeth the Lord.”
And here is how I process and reconcile all this conflicting information.
In a church that emphasizes family and marriage
and relationships as essential to eternal happiness, and has spent billions of
dollars building temples which dot the earth to insure that those very
relationships are bound in heaven as on earth, I simply cannot believe the Lord
would create nor allow the very nature of the most dear and intimate
relationship – between couples who enter into the bonds of matrimony – to be
clouded in confusion and chaos. In other
words, I do not believe in eternal polygamy – defined as marriage between one
man and more than one woman – as the only deviant from the traditional marriage
model. It’s not a thing. It won’t happen. It’s an invention by men, for men,
based on false assumptions created from and facilitated by centuries of male
domination and privilege. God can form eternal relationships however He
chooses, but to do so in a way that only privileges heterosexual men, as Nelson
and Oaks proclaim by word and by deed, is not in keeping with the nature of
God.
And speaking of privilege, I’ll speak honestly and
personally. This is a mess. It’s a nightmare.
All it does, for me, is convince me that the leaders of my church are
completely lost in their own blind privilege. By virtue of their own words and
sentiments, It’s clear to me that they honestly believe their thoughts and ideas
and declarations and revelations come directly from God himself and they fail
to adequately understand and acknowledge that their own long-held worldviews are
and have ever been ubiquitously influenced and informed by their very existence
as white, heterosexual, privileged, American, Mormon men.
But even though I choose to reject the notion that
eternal polygamy exists, what do I do with the fact that the two key leaders of
my church each have two eternal wives and at least one of them openly believes
in the eternal nature of his marriage to both women? Not only that, but these
same two men have boldly demonstrated that they aren’t afraid to break the
rules. And what are the implications of that as far as how they, personally,
view women and how they intend to lead an already male-dominated church steeped
in patriarchy and male privilege?
My faithful true-believing fellow Mormons would [condescendingly]
tell me to pack those thoughts away and forget about them.
“I don’t worry about
it.” “I have faith it will all work out.” “The church is still true.”
That
totally works until you educate yourself enough to understand your own
cognitive dissonance and begin to apply even a little critical thinking. (And
it actually worked for me for more than five decades of my life.) It also
requires absolute belief that the church leaders in question do, in fact, take
all their cues from God himself with virtually no hint of outside influence, a
premise I can no longer buy into. Others, whom I consider to be the least
perceptive and rational of my church associates, make light of these genuine
concerns and laugh them off with various degrees of insensitive remarks. On a
recent Facebook thread concerning eternal polygamy, a “friend” wrote:
I always tell [my husband] that if polygamy is reinstated, I’m cool with it as long as his first pick is somebody who LOVES cleaning! After that, he can go for a chef, an interior decorator, etc in any order he likes. I’ll just stay in the garden and grow the food! Heaven!
When a "critic" like me becomes too troublesome and
difficult to deal with the natural inclination of true believers is to offer an
easy and perfectly sensible solution. “If you don’t believe in the church any
more, just leave.” That’s so easy to say. But when it’s the thing that has
influenced your life more than anything else you can possibly think of, when
it’s the thing upon which you based every decision you’ve ever made, when it’s
the thing for which many generations of your family in multiple ancestral lines
sacrificed and whole-heartedly embraced, when it’s the thing to which you
committed your children and your children’s children who continue to look up to
you as a stalwart example and a proclaimer of the truth, and when it’s your
heritage and your tribe and your identity and your very life you simply can’t.
just. walk. away.
Of course, this is conditional on a true-believing
member speaking to you at all. It’s so much easier – and much more common – to
make the all-encompassing assumptions that someone who changed their level of
activity or belief became offended, wants to sin, stopped reading
scriptures, was influenced by Satan, etc. while any and all conversations
concerning them take place among others. The worldwide Mormon gossip mill is
alive and well. Sometimes those behind-your-back conversations can take place
in ward councils where someone is assigned to drop off cookies or extend an
invitation to the next ward activity. An actual meaningful dialog is not likely
to ever happen.
By the way, I know exactly how the stereo-typical true-believing member thinks and
behaves. I used to be one of them.
By contrast – and call them what you will –
nuanced believers, progressive believers, former believers, or even
non-believers would generally have a different approach while offering help and
support in dealing with these troubling issues:
“I’m so sorry.” “I understand.” “I feel your pain.” “Tell me all about it.”
To be honest, this whole thing scares me. And
here’s why. As I try to get inside these men’s heads, based on their words and
their actions, I am led to believe that they envision the exact same heaven
that my great-grandfather, Joseph Christenson, the subject of this blog, saw
when he imagined his divine destiny, filled with infinite glory, power, and influence, while being taught in the Salt Lake Temple.
On Friday, 27 July 1894 he wrote:
At the prayer circle Prest. Lorenzo Snow uttered a prophesy which is in substance as follows: That the brethren present would all eventually occupy their thrones, surrounded by their families, and would govern them as God governs us now. Though we might see great trials, so that some might feel like committing suicide; yet we would feel the life giving influence to overcome this, and eventually come to our thrones; and he would see it. There was a glorious spirit present. The power of God was manifest, and he spoke in his name and said he knew it to be true. I felt a thrill go through me, and made a resolve within myself to endeavor to my duty, and to seek the Almighty for assistance to keep faithful, and to keep the commandments of God.
 |
| Joseph F. Smith surrounded by some of his wives and posterity |
I
can definitely see why he was turned on by this. But that doesn’t feel like
heaven to me.
So
what will I do?
I’ll continue to do what I’ve done over the past few years. I’ll
carry on. With Nelson and Oaks at the helm, fully anticipating that the
leadership reigns will tighten and even more retrenchment will occur, I’ll slowly
disengage more and more. Self-preservation dictates it. But maybe, if I can
keep as much as one finger or toe above water by the time Nelson and Oaks (and
Ballard) have all been called home to their duly-earned polygamous kingdoms on
high to rule over their wives and children forever, I’ll have enough strength
left to crawl back into Holland’s boat. Time will tell. We shall see.
Amen!
ReplyDelete