Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the church. We're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

All right, diving into this stack of sources about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Wow, we've got articles, historical accounts, journal entries,

even a 19th century pamphlet defending polygamy.

Looks like someone's looking for a deep, deep understanding here. We're ready.

It's a topic that keeps people talking even centuries later. And rightfully so. I mean, it touches on faith, relationships, power dynamics, a lot there.

Absolutely. A lot to unpack. So, maybe to ground ourselves, let's start with those early hints of plural marriage, you know, before it became widely known in the 1840s.

Okay. Yeah. Like the account from WW Phelps, he wrote about a revelation that Joseph Smith supposedly received back in 1831 and it was about taking wives specifically from the Lamonites and Nephites.

Interesting. And we see similar hints, don't we, from Ezra Booth?

Yeah.

An early church member. He left later on, but he talked about a revelation regarding he called it a matrimonial alliance with Native Americans.

Exactly. And these accounts, even though from years later. They suggest that the concept of plural marriage might have been introduced much earlier than people typically think. It challenges the idea that it just sort of appeared out of nowhere in Nauvoo.

Right. Right. Yeah.

Okay. So then we have Fanny Alger. This young woman was living in the Smith household and their relationship in the mid 1830s caused a lot of controversy.

A lot of controversy. Yeah. And the accounts differ, you know, was it a marriage? Was it an affair? Right.

Some like Oliver Cowdery, he very strongly They called it a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.

Oh wow.

Obviously that caused a lot of tension and conflict especially for Emma Smith

and for Oliver Cowdery too. I mean he was Joseph Smith's scribe and close confidant at the time and he actually ended up leaving the church partly because of this whole thing.

It's a big deal. I think it's really important to remember the context, right? I mean we're looking at this through a very modern lens and presentism can really really distort our understanding.

Of course. Yeah.

People in the 19th century they had different social and religious norms,

right? And Joseph Smith, like anyone else, was a product of his time.

Of course,

his understanding of eternal family, which of course includes plural marriage, it seems to have evolved over time. It's not like it was just suddenly there,

not all at once, right?

And that evolution, that change over time, it seems connected to personal tragedies that he went through. I mean, the deaths of his brother Alvin and his infant son, those possibly played a role in his developing theology about family connections,

you know, connections that extend beyond this life. It's a very human thing, isn't it? I mean, to think about how those deeply personal experiences might have shaped his understanding of eternity.

Absolutely.

And you know, the importance of sealing families together.

Definitely. And then you have that vision, that really pivotal vision in the Kirtland Temple in 1836. You know, the one where Joseph received the priesthood keys from Elijah

which we now connect to the practice of ceilings for eternity.

Almost like he was given the authority first and then gradually started to understand its full meaning. Like It came in stages.

Yeah, that's a good way to put it. And then later on, you have accounts from people like Lorenzo Snow, right?

Benjamin F. Johnson, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, and they all describe Joseph Smith receiving a commandment, a direct commandment from an angel to practice polygamy.

And these accounts often involve, I mean, it's pretty dramatic imagery, an angel with a drawn sword,

really underscoring how divine and how serious this command was supposed to be taken.

Very powerful, but you know, you can imagine there are those who claim that he was initially reluctant to implement plural marriage even though he had this commandment.

So, how do we reconcile that? It's a tough one. Some people say he's commanded by an angel. Others say he was hesitant. It's a hard thing to put together those viewpoints.

Yeah, it is. And on top of that, there's this lack of contemporary documentation like specifically about the angel with the drawn sword.

So, we're left trying to piece together these later recollections and we have to consider the context of those recollections. Memories can be tricky, you know.

Absolutely. Yeah.

And motivations for sharing certain information. I mean, those can vary so much, too.

Yeah.

We have to consider all that, I think.

Okay. Let's shift gears a bit here. Um,

polyandry. Polyandry was also part of Joseph Smith's polygamy. Just to clarify, that's where women are sealed to multiple men. It's one of the harder things to wrap your head around. Honestly,

it's definitely a difficult concept, especially thinking about it today. And we see some examples in the sources like Zina Huntington Jacobs, who was sealed to Joseph Smith while still married to Henry Jacobs.

And of course, there's Patty Bartlett Sessions. She was sealed to Joseph just a month after her own daughter, Sylvia, was sealed to him.

Wow. It's definitely complex. Some people have proposed explanations though, like the idea that a faithful spouse could help exalt a less faithful one in the afterlife.

So maybe it was about trying to ensure the salvation of the whole family. In a way,

it's possible. It definitely shows just how complex their beliefs about eternal families were.

So, okay, with all of this swirling around in 1840, 43 we have the introduction of Doctrine of Covenants 132.

Mhm.

That revelation outlining the principles of eternal marriage which includes plural marriage.

Huge turning point for Emma Smith especially. She went back and forth, you know, between accepting it and rejecting it. At one point she even burned a manuscript copy of the Revelation.

Oh wow.

Talk about emotional turmoil.

And the Revelation itself uses, I mean, really strong language about the consequences for those who reject plural marriage. It must been incredibly difficult for her for many women in Nauvoo at the time.

You can imagine. And even with this revelation coming out, the public denials of polygamy continued from Joseph Smith and other church leaders in the early 1840s.

So they were practicing it but not openly acknowledging it,

right? It was a time of intense secrecy. We see things like, you know, that affidavit signed by 31 individuals in 1842, right?

Denying the practice of plural marriage. And you know, Eliza R. Snow was one of them, even though she'd been sealed. Jose Smith just 3 months before.

Wow. A lot of contradiction going on.

Yeah, a lot of contradiction. And then you have that pamphlet by Udney Jacob defending polygamy and Joseph Smith actually distanced himself from it in the Times and Seasons.

I remember that. Didn't he call it what was it? Unmeaning rigmarole of nonsense, folly, and trash.

He did. But it's interesting because he never condemned the ideas in the pamphlet itself.

So what was the point of all the denials then? What was happening?

It was a difficult situation. Polygamy was incredibly controversial. The church was already facing so much persecution. Openly admitting to it could have had huge consequences.

Makes sense. Okay. Now, let's talk about this really difficult issue, the power dynamics, potential coercion in Joseph Smith's polygamous relationships. This is something we really can't shy away from.

It's crucial to examine it carefully, and our sources show examples of young women, young women in vulnerable situations being approached for marriage. Some were living in the Smith household. Others had recently lost parents. Some were facing economic hardship.

And there's evidence of spiritual promises and threats being used. I mean, eternal salvation and exaltation offered to those who accepted plural marriage. But there also suggestions of spiritual consequences for those who refused.

Right? We can't dismiss the fact that those tactics could be seen as coercive, especially given Joseph Smith's position of authority. It's a good reminder that power dynamics exist even within a religious context, and questions of consent and agency are incredible. important. It really is. And it's a stark reminder, I think, that we need to look at these historical situations with nuance, with sensitivity. Now, shifting gears a little bit. Let's talk about motivations. Some of the sources you sent suggest that Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy, well, they suggest it was driven by a desire for sexual gratification,

right? And they kind of point to the number of wives that he took and, you know, the age differences in some cases as evidence for that. But that's a pretty surface level interpretation, isn't it?

It is. I mean, there's very limited evidence to suggest that these relationships were solely or even primarily about sexual intimacy.

Some of the sources like you know those accounts mentioning Joseph Smith initial reluctance suggest it was about fulfilling you know what he believed was a divine command not personal desires

and it's interesting I think to note that only two children have been documented as being born from all of those plural unions. So that definitely complicates the narrative that it was all driven by lust.

Okay. So if it wasn't just about sex Then what were some of the other motivations that are out there? I mean the sources offer some different perspectives.

Yeah. One theory is that he was trying to create what you might call dynastic connections. You know, solidify alliances, build a network of support by marrying into these really prominent families. I mean, think about it. It was a pretty tumultuous time for the early church. So those connections could have been really strategically important.

That makes sense. It adds a layer of like political and social maneuvering to the whole whole situation. Anything else?

Yeah, another possibility is that some of these ceilings were more like um almost a proxy husband arrangement. You see an example of this where Jason Smith was sealed to Miranda Johnson Hyde while her husband Orson Hyde was off on a mission.

So, a way to kind of provide for and protect women while their husbands were absent.

Exactly. It might seem kind of unconventional to us now, but back then it could have been seen as a way to strengthen the community, make sure everyone was cared for.

We also see the idea a of these premortal attachments coming up in some of the accounts like the one from Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner.

Oh yeah.

The idea that certain souls were connected before this life and polygamy was a way to reunite them.

It's a really fascinating concept that shows that their understanding of these relationships went far far beyond just like earthly life. They truly believed these connections had eternal significance.

It seems pretty clear that there were multiple layers at play here with Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. It wasn't just one thing, one motivation. We're not going to find one easy answer.

Nope. It's much more complex than that. And as we've been seeing, I mean, the historical record is full of contradictions, gaps in our knowledge. And we have to be willing to hold space for that complexity, you know, to acknowledge that we may never have all the answers.

Okay. So, after Joseph Smith's death, we see plural marriage continuing, but this time it's under Brigham Young. Young's leadership. He didn't shy away from it. He took it west with the Saints.

Yeah, he did. And you see, other church leaders, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, they continued defending it and practicing it, too. Wilford Woodruff even claimed to have a revelation saying the US would be destroyed if it kept opposing plural marriage. Pretty intense stuff.

Oh wow. Yeah, that is pretty intense. And you know, even though the LDS church officially stopped the practice in the late 19th century, it still has this huge impact on Mormonism and their view of marriage.

It does. Absolutely. The legacy of plural marriage, it's still felt today. You see it in conversations about gender roles, about family structure, about eternal relationships within the church. It's a part of their history for sure, and it continues to shape their present.

Let's circle back, if we can, to those really early revelations, the ones supposedly received by Joseph Smith way back in 1831.

You know, those ones about taking wives from the Lamonites and the Nephites.

Why is that significant? You know, especially considering that it was years before those events in Nauvoo.

Well, I think it's crucial because it suggests that the concept of plural marriage was already part of Joseph Smith's thinking and way earlier than most people realize. You know, it wasn't just this sudden shift in Nauvoo. It was more like this gradual unfolding of ideas, you know, potentially over a decade or even longer.

So, it's not about asking why did he start practicing polygamy in Nauvoo. It's more like

what led him to this idea in the first place way back when.

Exactly. It really shifts the focus from speculating about his motivations in Nauvoo to really trying to understand those deeper theological and spiritual roots. of the practice. What did he believe about God, about salvation, about eternal families, and what led him down this very specific path?

It's a totally different way of looking at it. It moves us away from judging his actions through a modern lens and moves us more toward trying to understand that historical and theological context where these ideas were developing.

And speaking of context, let's talk about Fanny Alger again. Remember, this is the mid 1830s and it's often cited as first instance of plural marriage being practiced even though of course it was kept very very secret.

Yeah. And the sources paint you know a bit of a confusing picture. Some say it was a marriage, some say it was an affair.

Yeah.

It's hard to know for sure what was really going on.

That's the challenge with reconstructing history, right? Especially when it's shrouded in secrecy and controversy. You have these different narratives and you have to try to piece together the truth as best you can.

It's like a puzzle, you know, where some of the pieces are missing and others are kind of faded. with time.

Exactly. And that's what makes this kind of deep dive so interesting, right? I mean, we're not just sitting here passively absorbing information. We're actively engaging with history, you know, trying to really understand all the complexities.

One thing that I think is really interesting about this is that Fanny Alger's family, they remain faithful to Joseph Smith and to the church even after all this controversy. They were close with him. And it seems like they didn't view this relationship as something scandalous or immoral.

That's That's a really good point. It challenges the idea that it was simply a case of Joseph Smith, you know, taking advantage of a young woman. If her own family, who knew him well, didn't see it that way. It suggests that there's more to the story. You know, there's more to it than we might initially think.

And it reminds us that we can't just impose our own, you know, present- day moral judgments onto the past, right?

People in the 19th century had such different social and cultural norms,

different understandings of relationships.

Now, you sent in some sources that talk about spiritual which is a term that Joseph Smith's opponents used, you know, to discredit him and to discredit the practice of plural marriage.

Right. Right. I remember reading about that. They basically painted him as, you know, someone who was using religion as a cover for these illicit sexual relationships. It was a way to really smear his reputation and make polygamy seem even more scandalous.

Yeah, it was a powerful rhetorical strategy and unfortunately it's a tactic that's still used today. You know, just slap a negative label on something and then you don't even have to engage with the actual beliefs or practices.

Right. It's about shutting down the conversation rather than trying to understand the different perspective.

Exactly.

And in the case of Joseph Smith and plural marriage, I mean, he and his followers completely denied those accusations of spiritual wifey. They saw it as a divinely ordained principle, something completely separate from immoral behavior.

And this leads us back to polyandry, which is arguably the most challenging aspect of Justice Smith's polygamy. me to, you know, to reconcile with how we understand marriage.

You you're talking about those cases where women were sealed to multiple men, right? Like we talked about earlier, Zina Huntington being sealed to Joseph Smith while still married to Henry Jacobs.

Exactly. It's really difficult, I think, to make sense of those arrangements from our perspective. But if you want to understand them, you really need to step back and try to see them through the lens of what early Mormons believed.

One of our sources actually suggests that those Polyandrous sealings were about ensuring the salvation of the entire family. You know, the idea that a faithful spouse could help exalt a less faithful spouse in the afterlife,

right? It might seem strange to us, but it's important to remember they truly believed in this plan of salvation that extended beyond this life. And those ceilings, they were a crucial part of that plan. It wasn't just about the earthly relationships, but those eternal connections.

So, instead of applying our modern ideas about marriage to these situations, we have to try to understand them in the context of their beliefs about eternal families and that interconnectedness of souls.

Exactly. It's about trying to see the world through their eyes, even if we don't agree with, you know, all of their choices.

And speaking of seeing things through their eyes, Emma Smith's story, it's a really powerful reminder of, you know, the human cost of these events.

Oh, yeah.

She really struggled with this. We see her going back and forth, you know, accepting it, rejecting it, feeling betrayed, feeling hurt.

It's a very, very poignant journey, I think. And, you know, she wasn't just simply opposed to plural marriage. She wrestled with it. She tried to understand it. She ultimately made her choices based on her own conscience. And you can bet it couldn't have been easy being married to the very person who is introducing this whole practice.

It's a story that deserves our empathy, our understanding even if you know we might not agree with all the choices that she made.

Absolutely. And then you have the young women who were approached for plural marriage. Uh some sources highlight you know those who were living in the Smith household, those who had recently lost parents or or we're facing, you know, some economic hardship. It raises those really uncomfortable questions about, you know, vulnerability and potential coercion.

And we really can't shy away from those questions. No. I mean, Joseph Smith was the prophet, the leader of the church. He held immense spiritual authority. That power dynamic is undeniable.

It is. And we do see instances of those spiritual promises and threats being used as persuasion. You know, eternal salvation offered, spiritual consequences suggested are those who refuse.

And that's where things get really ethically murky, right?

I mean, if someone believes that their eternal destiny depends on a decision like this, how much agency do they really have? It's a really complicated question, and it's a question, I think, that we still grapple with today. You know, not just in Mormonism, but in other religious and cultural contexts as well.

Absolutely. Where's the line between persuasion and coercion? How do we balance spiritual authority with individual freedom? These are big, important questions, and there aren't always easy answers.

Okay, so even After the revelation on plural marriage was received in 1843, it was still kept secret, you know, for years and Joseph Smith and other leaders continued to deny it publicly. That seems to contradict, I mean, the whole idea that this was a commandment from God, doesn't it?

It's definitely one of the more challenging parts of the story. You know, why all the secrecy if it was truly divinely ordained? One explanation is that, you know, they were trying to protect the saints from persecution. I mean, think about it. Polygamy was illegal and incredibly popular. Admitting to it could have just led to more violence, more legal trouble.

Right? They'd already been driven from state to state. They were trying to build a life in Nauvoo, and they didn't want to risk losing it all.

But the denials also raise questions about transparency and honesty. You know, you have these church leaders making these public statements condemning polygamy, but then they're practicing it privately. And that's a difficult thing to reconcile, I think.

So, how do we make sense of that?

Well, some argue that they were just in survival mode. You know, they believed it was a commandment, but they also had to protect the community. It was a balancing act and it wasn't always pretty.

Yeah. A lot of gray areas here in this story. Okay. Let's dig into the theology of all of this a bit more if we can. One of the arguments that comes up again and again in the sources you sent is this idea of raising up seed unto the Lord. And it seems to be rooted in that, you know, that biblical model of the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They had multiple wives and concubines.

Yeah. And that biblical precedent, I mean, it played a huge role in Joseph Smith's understanding of plural marriage. He saw it as a restoration of an ancient practice, you know, a way to follow the example of these righteous men and to fulfill God's command to multiply and replenish the earth.

But isn't there a little bit of a contradiction here? I mean, the Book of Mormon, the one that Joseph Smith translated, it condemns polygamy.

It does. It specifically states that monogamy is God's standard for marriage, unless of course, God commands otherwise.

Okay, so that's a pretty big discrepancy. How people explain that.

Well, some argue that Joseph Smith's understanding evolved over time. You know, they say he received that early revelation, the one back in 1831, but he hesitated to implement it, you know, because of the potential consequences. So, those events with Fanny Alger, the reception of the ceiling keys, those were all steps in this, you know, unfolding understanding.

So, it's not like he just, you know, decided one day, hey, I'm going to start practicing polygamy. It was a process. And his understanding kind of deepened over time. Exactly. And this perspective allows for the possibility that he made mistakes, that he struggled, that he was a human being, you know, just trying to figure things out just like the rest of us.

Another theological justification that we see is this concept of eternal progression. You know, they believe that reaching the highest level of glory in the afterlife, what they called exaltation, required plural marriage,

right? And this was very closely tied to the idea of becoming like God. They saw God as this, you know, exalted being with multiple eternal partners. and they believed that plural marriage was a necessary step in becoming like him.

It's a concept that might seem you know completely foreign to a lot of people today.

Yeah.

But it was really fundamental to their understanding of marriage and family and you know the very purpose of life itself.

It is and it helps explain why these leaders you know people like Wilford Woodruff defended polygamy so passionately even in the face of such intense opposition. I mean to them it wasn't just a social custom or personal preference. It was a core principle. people of their faith.

And even though the official practice ended back in 1890, you know, that doctrine of eternal marriage is still a central tenant of the LDS church today.

Oh yeah, absolutely. And it continues to shape their views on family, on relationships, and on the afterlife.

Okay. So, we have these accounts of an angel commanding Joseph Smith to practice polygamy, but we also have those who say he was hesitant. How do we reconcile those really different views?

Well, it reminds us, I think, that history is messy, and we often have to to work with incomplete information, with contradictory information. We have to look at the sources, consider who's saying what and when they're saying it.

And those accounts of the angel, they were often recorded years, sometimes decades after Joseph Smith's death. So, you know, we have to consider whether those telling the story were maybe embellishing it, reinterpreting events to support a certain narrative.

You have to think about that. But that doesn't mean we just dismiss them entirely. It just means we approach them with a critical eye. We consider the context. We consider the motivations of those who were involved.

Okay. And then there's the issue of consent. Right. A lot of the sources that you sent focus on the potential for coercion, especially given Joseph Smith's authority as the prophet,

but some point out that many of the women he married were already very devout members of the church. They believed in his prophetic calling,

right? They may have been more inclined to accept plural marriage as this, you know, divine principle. even if it challenged their own feelings or went against social norms.

But believing in someone's prophetic calling, that doesn't erase the power dynamics, right?

That doesn't.

And we still have those accounts of the spiritual promises and the threats that were being used.

You do. It's a very delicate balance. On the one hand, you want to acknowledge that these women had their own agency. They made choices based on their faith. But on the other hand, we can't ignore the possibility of undue influence.

So, how do we navigate that tension?

I think by being hon honest about the complexities by recognizing that even within a religious framework, critical thinking and ethical considerations, those are still really important.

Absolutely. As we kind of move forward with this whole deep dive, it's important to remember we're dealing with this limited historical record,

right?

And with a lot of different interpretations, right,

we can't pretend to have all the answers.

We have to be willing to sit with that uncertainty to acknowledge the gaps in our knowledge and to approach this topic with a sense of humility.

Absolutely.

Okay. Let's talk about Helen Mar Kimball she was reportedly sealed to Joseph Smith when she was just 14 years old. And this is obviously a deeply troubling aspect of the story. I think for a lot of people,

it is it raises some really, really serious ethical concerns, you know, about consent, about power dynamics, and about the potential for abuse. And we really can't shy away from that.

I mean, marrying a 14-year-old, even in the 19th century, that was unusual.

It was.

And Joseph Smith's position of authority, I mean, as the prophet It makes it even more problematic.

It creates this power imbalance that's really impossible to ignore.

Some people, you know, they try to defend Joseph Smith by saying that the marriage was just a what they call a dynastic ceiling and didn't involve sexual relations. But that's speculation, right?

Rez, we simply do not have the evidence to support that claim. And even if it were true, sealing a 14-year-old girl to himself, even without sexual intimacy, I mean, it suggests a desire for control and a disregard for her autonomy.

And it's important, I think, to remember that abuse can take many forms and power dynamics. They can manifest in ways that, you know, go far beyond just the physical.

Absolutely. To really understand this situation, I think we also need to consider Helen's family. You know, her father, Heber C. Kimball, he was a prominent church leader and a very strong supporter of plural marriage. He even offered his own wife, Ville, to Joseph Smith.

Wow. It's it's hard to even imagine, you know, the pressure that Helen must have felt growing up in that environment. Obedience to priesthood. authority, acceptance of plural marriage, these things were probably very deeply ingrained.

Absolutely. And the promise of eternal salvation, you know, which was often used in these proposals probably carried immense weight for a young woman, especially one raised in such a devout family. It's a reminder, I think, that social and cultural context. Those can have a huge impact on, you know, on individual choices.

Now, even though this whole marriage between Joseph Smith and Helen Mar Kimball, it's deeply troubling to us today. It's important that we you that we avoid these anachronistic judgments. Yeah, we can acknowledge the ethical complexities, the power imbalances without, you know, condemning these individuals, without imposing our 21st century values onto the past. It's about trying to understand the historical context while also recognizing that some actions, you know, they're simply wrong regardless of when they occurred.

Okay, so next up in this stack of sources, we have the Nauvoo Expositor. This was a newspaper established by some dissident church members back in 1840. 44 and they openly criticized Joseph Smith, his leadership, including the practice of polygamy.

This newspaper, it was pretty short-lived, but it had a huge impact. I mean, it really fueled the conflict that surrounded plural marriage, and it ultimately contributed to those events that led to Joseph Smith's death.

They only published one issue, right? And then, I mean, the Nauvoo City Council, which was of course led by Joseph Smith, they declared it a public nuisance and ordered its destruction.

They did. They claimed it was libelest, that it was inciting violence. And you know, while that might have been true to an extent, destroying the printing press. I mean, that was seen by many as a very direct attack on freedom of the press.

Yeah. And it really plays into that whole perception of Joseph Smith, you know, kind of becoming more and more authoritarian.

It does. And it contributed to that growing hostility towards him, towards the church, which as we know eventually led to that mob attack in Carthage.

The Nauvoo Expositor, even though it didn't last long, it really serves as a reminder, I think, of the importance of dissent, of the danger of silencing those opposing voices even within a religious community.

Yeah. It also highlights the importance of accountability, you know, even for those who are in positions of religious authority.

And after Joseph Smith's death, Brigham Y. Young takes over leadership of the church and the practice of plural marriage continues.

Then under his leadership, it really expands, I mean, significantly as the saints migrate west to Utah.

And that of course led to decades of conflict with the US government, right? I mean, they saw polygamy as a violation of federal law. and of morality.

Yeah, it was a clash of cultures, a clash of values, a clash of legal systems, and it put the church in a really difficult position.

They ultimately had to choose, you know, abandon the practice or face the consequences.

And in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, he issues the manifesto and this officially ended the practice of plural marriage within the LDS church. It was a huge turning point, a compromise that really allowed the church to move towards, you know, greater acceptance within American society. But as we've been talking about that legacy of plural marriage, it's still shaping Mormonism today.

You know, both in their doctrine and in those ongoing conversations about gender, about family, and about authority.

It's a good reminder that history matters. Even when it's uncomfortable, even when it's challenging, it shapes who we are and how we understand the world around us.

It's a reminder, too, I think, that history, you know, it's not about judging the past by our modern standards. It's about trying to understand the people. you know, and the context in which those events actually happened.

It's about empathy, about curiosity, and a willingness to engage with the complexities.

Exactly. So, let's go back to those accounts of an angel commanding Joseph Smith to practice polygamy. You know, we have sources that describe this angel with a drawn sword. And it really emphasizes, you know, just how serious this was, the divine nature of the command.

Those images are powerful, and they certainly lend weight to the argument that, you know, this wasn't just a personal choice. for Justice Smith. He was reportedly, I mean, really torn between his own feelings and a sense of duty to obey God, even when the command was very difficult, maybe even dangerous. But like so much of this story, there are conflicting accounts. Some sources claim that he was hesitant, that he resisted for years, and only really did it after, you know, repeated pressure from this angel.

And that discrepancy, it really highlights the challenge of working with historical sources, doesn't it? I mean, were those describing the angel with the drawn sword Were they embellishing the story, maybe trying to make plural marriage seem more legitimate? Or were they sincerely recalling, you know, a really traumatic and pivotal moment in Joseph Smith's life?

It's a question that, you know, historians and theologians, they continue to debate. It reminds us to be critical readers of history, I think, especially when you're dealing with these sensitive topics. Yeah. Controversial topics.

And we also have to remember that, you know, just because there's no contemporary documentation of an angel with a drawn sword, it doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. It just means we have to approach these accounts very carefully considering all the possibilities.

Okay. Now, let's talk about Doctrine in Covenants 132.

Okay.

That revelation that really outlines the principles of eternal marriage and plural marriage. It's a text that's both revered, I think, and controversial even within Mormonism.

It is it's a very complex text, very challenging, covers a lot of ground. The nature of God, the purpose of marriage, the conditions for exaltation, and it uses some I mean, some really strong language, including threats of damnation for those who reject plural marriage.

One of the most challenging aspects of this revelation, I think, is how it seems to justify polygamy, you know, based on that biblical model of the patriarchs like Abraham,

right? And Joseph Smith, I mean, he clearly saw those figures, those biblical figures as a precedent for the practice. He believed that he was restoring an ancient order following the example of these righteous men.

But critics, of course, they argue that, you know, this interpretation, it ignores the historical context of those biblical accounts

and that it really picks and chooses certain passages while overlooking others that maybe condemn polygamy or highlight its negative consequences.

It shows how our understanding of scripture is always influenced by our own cultural and theological lens. We bring our own biases, our own assumptions to these texts and it shapes how we understand them.

It's a reminder that we should be really careful about using ancient texts to justify, you know, modern practices, especially when those practices raise ethical concerns or maybe go against our current understanding of morality.

Now, Doctrine in Covenants 132 also emphasizes, I think, the importance of consent within plural marriage. You know, it states that a man needs his first wife's consent before taking any additional wives.

That seems like a positive thing, right? A recognition that women should have a voice in this.

It does. But then the revelation goes on to say that a wife who refuses to consent will be destroyed.

Oh, wow.

So, you have this tension, this real tension between the principle of consent and this threat of divine punishment for those who don't comply.

It's like they were trying to acknowledge women's agency but still operating within a patriarchal structure where a wife's disobedience was seen as this really really serious transgression.

Right? And it highlights again I think the challenge of interpreting these historical texts. We can't just read them at face value. We have to think about those social and cultural norms, those power dynamics, you know, the limitations of language itself.

We have to be critical readers of history, we have to be questioning our assumptions, recognizing that things aren't always black and white,

right?

Okay. You sent in a source that mentions the law of Sarah, and this seems to contradict the the whole idea of, you know, requiring a wife's consent in plural marriage.

The law of Sarah is a very controversial interpretation of a passage in Doctrine and Covenants 132. It suggests that if a first wife refuses to consent to plural marriage, the husband is exempt from the law. and can go ahead and proceed anyway.

That's confusing. I mean, how can her refusal be both acknowledged and disregarded?

Some scholars say that, you know, the law of Sarah was a specific revelation that was given to Joseph Smith for a particular situation and that it shouldn't be applied universally. Others suggest that it was, you know, kind of a necessary compromise given the legal and social climate at the time.

But critics see it as a really clear example of patriarchal overreach, a way to maintain male control, silence women's voices.

And it's a debate That really underscores, I think, the ongoing challenge of interpreting scripture and of applying these ancient principles to modern contexts. And it reminds us that there are often multiple perspectives on these complex issues.

As we wrap up our exploration of Joseph Smith's polygamy, I think it's pretty clear that there are no easy answers here.

Nope. We've encountered a lot of different perspectives, a lot of unanswered questions, a lot of moral and ethical complexities.

It's a reminder that history is not just this collection of facts and dates. It's a living thing, you know, full of nuance and contradictions.

And it's really up to each of us to engage with those complexities, to wrestle with the difficult questions, and to come to our own conclusions based on the evidence and based on our own values.

Well, thanks for joining us on this deep dive. We hope it's inspired you to keep exploring, keep learning, and keep questioning.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.