V.H. Cassler*
Marriage as an Eternal Principle
God commands his children to marry (D&C 49:15-16). God married our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden before the Fall (Moses 3:25). Scripture asserts that persons must be married to inherit the fullness of the Father in the celestial kingdom and that those who are not worthy of the celestial kingdom live as unmarried persons (D&C 132:4-6, 17-21). Furthermore, not only are persons to be married, but they are to be married in the new and everlasting covenant. The Lord states that this type of marriage is “by my word, which is my law” (D&C 132:19). In LDS culture we colloquially refer to marriage in the new and everlasting covenant as “temple marriage.” From all of this we understand that marriage in the new and everlasting covenant, or temple marriage, is an eternal principle of the highest importance. The Book of Jacob and the Doctrine and Covenants tell us more.
Jacob
Jacob notes a social problem of great severity: the men of the time are taking many wives and concubines and “seek to excuse themselves in committing (these) whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son” (Jacob 2:23). The situation is that these great men of the scripture were doing one thing, but God is now saying that those who follow David and Solomon’s example are committing “iniquity” (Jacob 2:23). How are we to understand this apparent contradiction?
In answer, the Lord notes that these men “understand not the scriptures” and err when they “seek to excuse themselves” in emulating David and Solomon (Jacob 2:23). The Lord continues, “David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me” (vs. 24). Immediately following this frank judgment, the Lord states, “Wherefore . . . I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old” (Jacob 2:25-26). The use of the word “wherefore” in these two scriptures reveals that part of the purpose in separating the Nephites from the civilization of their origin and bringing them across the ocean to the promised land was to “raise up a righteous” people who would not succumb to the moral errors of David and Solomon.
And how would the children of Lehi act if this purpose had been fulfilled? In the very next verse we are given the answer to that question. In verse 27 Jacob expounds the law of marriage--the rule or unrestricted form of marriage, if you will: “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none” (Jacob 2:27). The general law (or rule or unrestricted form) of the eternal principle of marriage is monogamy. That monogamy is the law or rule of the principle of marriage is found several places throughout the scriptures. To take but one example, the Lord says in Doctrine and Covenants 49:16 “Wherefore, it is lawful that he [man] should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation.” In the beginning, when the earth was empty and sorely needed replenishing, God gave Adam but one wife, Eve, that the pattern of his law of marriage might be set from the dawn of time in the very first human marriage on earth (see also Moses 5:3). [1] Joseph Smith said, “ I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.” [2] Bruce R. McConkie concurs: “According to the Lord’s law of marriage, it is lawful that a man have only one wife at a time, unless by revelation the Lord commands plurality of wives in the new and everlasting covenant.” [3] Of course, taking a plurality of wives outside of the new and everlasting covenant, outside of being commanded to do so by the Lord, is always a grievous sin. [4]
Jacob teaches us that monogamy is the general law of marriage and polygamy is an exception to the general law, which exception must be commanded by the Lord before it can be practiced. Both the giving of the general law and the commandment to depart from the general law are motivated by God’s love for us. But one thing is also clear from Jacob’s sermon: God is not indifferent concerning how his children marry. He actively and severely restricts the practice of polygamy, while leaving monogamy unrestricted. One can be “destroyed” for practicing polygamy without God’s sanction, becoming “angels to the devil” and “bring[ing] your children unto destruction, and their sins heaped upon your heads at the last day,” but no such punishment attends the practice of monogamy (Jacob 2:33; 3:5-6, 10-12).
Our next question, for whose answer we must turn to Doctrine and Covenants 132, is simple: Why is God not indifferent between the practices of monogamy and polygamy, severely restricting as he does the second while leaving the first virtually unrestricted?
Doctrine and Covenants 132
Doctrine and Covenants 132 concerns the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and its place at the heart of the plan of salvation and exaltation. Without its restoration, the fullness of eternal life would be unobtainable. Thankfully, as noted in Doctrine and Covenants 132:40, the Lord gave Joseph Smith an “appointment” to “restore all things,” and therefore Joseph Smith restored the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This much is indisputable. What is often in dispute in our culture is what exactly this means.
Given the over 150 years that have passed since the receipt of the revelation now known as Doctrine and Covenants 132, we are in a better position to settle that dispute. Joseph Smith restored marriage for “time and all eternity” (D&C 132:18), which we now colloquially call “temple marriage.” In restoring the principle of temple marriage, Joseph Smith restored both the general law of marriage and the lawful exception as elucidated by Jacob centuries before. Put more precisely, Joseph Smith restored the general law of monogamous temple marriage and he restored the lawful exception of polygamous temple marriage. At the time of the revelation (most scholars say prior to the date given for Doctrine and Covenants 132), God commanded Joseph Smith to command the Church membership to practice polygamy. By so doing, God activated the lawful exception to the general law of marriage. Thus, polygamous marriages entered into in the temple after that commandment was given by the Lord were “without condemnation on earth and in heaven” (D&C 132:48).
However, in 1890 God rescinded the commandment sanctioning the lawful exception to the general law of marriage. Polygamous marriages would no longer be recognized by the Lord, and indeed would be grounds for excommunication from the Church. This rescinding did not “unrestore” the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, or temple marriage. Temple marriage is a mainstay of our religion and will never cease to be our ideal. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is still among us, but the commandment to live the lawful exception to the general law of marriage in the new and everlasting covenant is no longer among us. Thus the “restoration of all things” does not demand that polygamy be actively practiced among the Saints; it merely demands that the possibility of God commanding polygamy (which possibility demands the restoration of temple marriage and sealing keys) exists. And so it does to this day. As long as there are temples and sealing keys among our people, God can, whenever he chooses to do so, command his people to practice polygamy. But the presence of temples and sealing keys does not conversely demand or necessitate that God actually issue the command to practice polygamy. Our contemporary situation is perfectly described in this manner and explains how Bruce R. McConkie could conclude that polygamy cannot be a requirement for exaltation and why the Church does not preach that it is. [5]
So we conclude that in restoring all things, Joseph Smith restored temple marriage, complete with its general law (monogamous temple marriage) and the possibility of God-commanded lawful exception (polygamous temple marriage). Thus we see that God’s lack of indifference concerning the manner of marriage among his children which we noted in Jacob 2 persists in Doctrine and Covenants 132. Even with the restoration of temple marriage, God is still not indifferent between monogamy and polygamy. If he were indifferent, his words to us might be, “As long as you marry in the temple, I am indifferent as to whether you marry monogamously or polygamously.” But such a conclusion cannot be reached, for he persists in actively and severely restricting polygamy despite the presence of temples in our midst. Absent a commandment from the Lord to practice polygamy given through his mouthpiece the prophet, a member of the Church would be excommunicated for attempting to practice it. The illegality of polygamy in the United States is not really the issue here, for such an excommunication would take place even if the Church member were living in a land where polygamy was a legal practice according to the law of the land. Even if polygamy were to be legalized in the United States itself, the Church would still excommunicate members in that country who attempted to practice it, unless the Lord issued the required commandment through the prophet to practice it. There is no greater spiritual punishment the Church can mete out against an offender than excommunication. God persists in making a strong discrimination between monogamy and polygamy, even in the context of the restoration of all things.
We come now to a very important question: Why is God not indifferent between monogamy and polygamy? Doctrine and Covenants 132 sheds great light on this topic.
Isaac and Hagar
In Doctrine and Covenants 132, the Lord will begin his chain of reasoning with a question, which he will then proceed to answer. The Lord states at the beginning of the revelation:
“You [Joseph Smith] have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines--Behold and lo, I am the Lord they God, and will answer thee as touching this matter” (D&C 132:1-2).
The same historical question serves as the catalyst for section 132 as it did for Jacob 2: What are we to make of the practice of David, Solomon, and other great patriarchs of old having many wives and concubines (D&C 132:1)? This time the inquirer is Joseph Smith--he who had previously translated the Book of Mormon, including Jacob 2.
This inquiry is again met by a setting forth of the general principles of marriage in the new and everlasting covenant, followed by a more specific explanation of the lawful exception of polygamy. Hyrum M. Smith’s commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants states, “The Revelation is divided into two parts. The first, comprising vs. 3-33, deals mainly with the principle of celestial marriage, or marriage for time and all eternity; the second, comprising the remaining verses, deals with plural marriage.” [6] As to the first part of the revelation, concerning the principle of marriage in the new and everlasting covenant, the Lord explains that all bonds and covenants “not by me or my word” (vs. 13) are of no effect after death, including the bond and covenant of marriage. He then goes on to explain that there is a marriage “by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant” (vs. 19) and that this marriage covenant remains in effect after death. Furthermore, parties to this special marriage covenant inherit the fullness of his glory (i.e., which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever; (vs. 19). That is to say, those who enter this covenant are able to have their own eternal increase in the hereafter. Having eternal increase renders them “gods, because they have no end” (vs. 20), and they shall have “all power” (vs. 20). Thus, only marriage within the new and everlasting covenant fulfills the two-fold spiritual purposes of marriage: to raise up a righteous seed unto him in mortality and to prepare his children to be eternal godly marriage partners and have eternal increase. All those who choose not to enter this special marriage covenant remain “separately and singly” (vs. 17) after death and cannot have eternal increase. Because they cannot have eternal increase, they cannot be gods but “are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants” (vs. 16). Now that this revelation has been given, all those who choose to marry outside the new and everlasting covenant though they were able to marry within that covenant are “damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory” (D&C 132:3).
In the setting forth of this general principle of eternal marriage (i.e., temple marriage) there is no mention of polygamy; indeed, the whole issue of David and Solomon is not even raised in the verses where the Lord discusses in general what eternal marriage is, why he commands eternal marriage, and why those who reject it are damned.
It is not until the second half of the revelation, starting with verse 34, as Smith and Sjodahl note, that polygamy is addressed. Before the Lord begins his discussion of polygamy, he introduces the case of Abraham. The Lord begins by explaining that because of Abraham’s righteousness in receiving “all things” by “revelation and commandment,” Abraham “hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne (D&C 132:29). As a result, Abraham’s seed will “continue” and will be “as innumerable as the stars” (D&C 132:30). A key element of Abraham’s righteousness was to enter into the “law,” which provides for “the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself” (D&C 132:31). The law referred to here is the law, or general principle, that the Lord has been expounding up to that point: marriage in the new and everlasting covenant, or temple marriage. Entering into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (temple marriage) is a requisite of exaltation for all, including Abraham and Joseph Smith.
Finally, starting with verse 34, the Lord turns to the topic of polygamy. He begins the discussion with a statement of fact: “God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.” In the verses that follow, the Lord will answer the question he then poses: “And why did she do it?” (D&C 132:34).
The Lord has apparently chosen to explain his reasoning and reveal his mind on polygamy in terms of a specific analogy between two situations that occurred to one historical man: Abraham. The Lord’s subsequent explanation centers around an analogy the Lord himself posits between his commandment to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and his commandment to Abraham to marry Hagar polygamously. In verse 36 the Lord explains: “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” (D&C 132:36). Given the importance of his children having a correct understanding of their Father’s mind on this topic, we cannot believe the analogy was chosen without great care. God wishes us to see how and why he views the two situations as analogous. By choosing the story of Isaac to be the analog of the story of polygamy the Lord reveals his mind to us and constraining forever and irrevocably any discussion we, his children, might choose to have on the subject of polygamy.
The first and most telling point to note about the analogy is that the story of Isaac is a story of sacrifice. The Lord is telling us that the term “Abrahamic sacrifice” refers not only to the story of Isaac but applies to the story of Hagar, as well. Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, in their authoritative Doctrine and Covenants commentary, concur:
“ Section 132 contains (1) an introductory statement (1-2); (2) a reminder to the Prophet that knowledge demands obedience (3-6); (3) a definition of the celestial law (7-14); and (4) how the law applies to marriage covenants (15-20); (5) a demand for obedience (21-7); (6) the Law of the Priesthood (28-33); (7) the doctrine of plural marriage (34-40); (8) a declaration that plurality of wives is not adultery (41-9); (9) that it is a sacrifice (50-7); (10) that it is a law of the Priesthood (58-66).” [7] This was more recently echoed by the apostle Quentin L. Cook, who in 2020, in the pages of the Ensign, stated, “[I] it's clear that there was a lot of sacrifice in plural marriages. There was a lot of love and unity, but there was also sacrifice, and parents in those marriages taught their children to sacrifice . . . in the senior councils of the church, there's a feeling that plural marriage, as it was practiced, served its purpose. We should honor those who Saints, but that purpose has been accomplished.” [8]
Before the Lord even delves into the analogy, his very positing of an analogy between the Isaac situation and the Hagar situation is revealing. Of all the possible analogies of sacrifice God has commanded in history (sacrifice of animals, sacrifice of possessions, sacrifice of home and country, sacrifice of one’s own life, and so forth), God chooses the most wrenching sacrifice he has ever commanded to serve as the analogy wherewith to instruct us concerning polygamy: the sacrifice of one’s own innocent child by one’s own hand. This choice of analogy by the Lord is meant to reveal to us that in the Lord’s eyes the Hagar situation is no light matter or run-of-the-mill sacrifice but rather is like unto the heaviest and most heart-wrenching of all sacrifices he has ever required of man.
Four Types of Sacrifice. Indeed, though sacrifice is one of the first principles of the gospel, there are various forms of sacrifice of which the Abrahamic sacrifice is the highest and heaviest. Let us see why this is so. A first type of sacrifice represents our choice to sacrifice to obtain a desired goal. So, for example, we might speak of “sacrificing” to send a child on a mission. The sacrifice is by our choice, and the goal is one we desire to see realized. A second type of sacrifice might better be understood as accepting persecution as a reaction by the unrighteous to our decision to follow God. We might be ostracized or even oppressed because of our beliefs and behavior by those who believe and behave otherwise. In some cases the unrighteous might even seek to take our lives because of our beliefs. Our choice to pursue a desired goal leads to choices by the unrighteous, which we cannot control, to inflict suffering upon us. A third type of sacrifice appears from our mortal perspective not to involve our agency, though perhaps from an eternal perspective agency did indeed play a role at a prior point. These are sacrifices of adversity, for example, where an innocent child is born with an imperfect body or accidents or illness take the health or life of persons. These sacrifices come to us without conscious mortal choice on our part, and the element of a desired goal in such a context is often obscure, as it was obscure to Job.
But the heaviest sacrifice a person can ever be called upon to make--the Abrahamic sacrifice--is slightly different from these other three types. In the Abrahamic sacrifice, we are asked by God to make a conscious choice in a situation in which what he requires of us cannot be regarded as a desired goal from all that we know about God’s laws. We can all understand how obedience to God’s laws, for example to the Ten Commandments, brings a happier, richer, and more peaceful life. But what if God were to command us to break his law? Reason alone would tell us we would lose the happiness and peace that come from obedience to the law. But the test of the Abrahamic sacrifice is not a test of reason. It is a test of faith--indeed, it is the ultimate test of faith.
Remember for a moment what an Abrahamic sacrifice represents. An Abrahamic sacrifice involves at least three elements found in the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac: 1) God makes plain to Abraham a law (“thou shalt not kill” [D&C 132:36]); 2) God then requires Abraham, an innocent and righteous man, to depart from that law (“sacrifice Isaac”), and the choice to depart therefrom would seem to erase the joy that naturally follows from the law; and 3) God provides a means of escape from the departure from the law (the angel sent to stay his hand and the ram in the thicket; Genesis 22:11-13), which allows renewed joy from being able to live under the law once more.
The Abrahamic Sacrifice Concerning Hagar. With that understanding in mind, let us turn to where we left off in Doctrine and Covenants 132. Remember that in verse 34 we finally begin a discussion of polygamy; we discover that God commanded that Abraham have children (in this case, one child) with Hagar, who was not his wife at the time of the commandment and who was handmaiden to his wife, Sarah. Abraham took Hagar to wife, thus entering into a God-commanded polygamous union. Fortunately, rather than leaving us with just this fact, the Lord helps us to greater understanding through the discussion that follows. The Lord asks “why” this was done (vs. 34), and then proceeds to answer: “Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises” (vs. 34). Does this mean that in God’s eyes polygamy is the general law and that he is indifferent between monogamy and polygamy after all? We will see that this is not what the Lord is saying.
The Lord’s exposition does not end with verse 34. To make sense of verse 34 we must view it in conjunction with the remainder of the section, especially the verses that specifically mention Abraham (verses 35-37, 50-51). Immediately after verse 34 the Lord asks, “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation?” (vs. 35). If we accept the position that the Lord is indifferent between monogamy and polygamy, this question is a non sequitur, and indeed, the very question itself makes no sense. How can someone practicing a form of marriage about which God is indifferent be perceived to be “under condemnation”? God cannot be referring to some type of cultural condemnation by Abraham’s peers. Remember, we are not talking about Joseph Smith’s time, when polygamy was culturally unacceptable; we are discussing Abraham, in whose time polygamy was commonplace and well accepted. No one in Abraham’s cultural setting would be condemning him for practicing polygamy, so why does the Lord ask, rhetorically, if Abraham was under condemnation? The Lord’s question raises a puzzle for us, and to understand it we must look to the scriptures that immediately follow.
Verse 36 is the key to the puzzle. In this verse, as noted, the Lord posits the direct analogy between his commandment to Abraham to marry Hagar and his commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Remember that in verse 36 the Lord explains: “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.”
Let us be clear on what is happening in this verse. The general law that God commands all to obey is “Thou shalt not kill.” Then, to one innocent and righteous man at one time, he gives a commandment to kill his own son (not a stranger, not a criminal, not an enemy soldier; there is no justification possible for killing one’s innocent young son). God has commanded something exceptional of this man--something that goes against all that he knows of God’s law and for which he can find no possible justification. God is asking Abraham to depart from the law that he himself gave Abraham. He requires of Abraham a sacrifice not demanded by justice and the law. In this sense, God asks Abraham to perform a Christlike sacrifice in similitude of the sacrifice of God and his own perfectly innocent Son in the Atonement. Because Christ was perfectly innocent the law could not demand that he suffer and die for his actions. But Christ chose to suffer and die to fulfill the demands of justice for others. Abraham and Christ both consciously chose to sacrifice the happiness they were due under the law to bring about a greater good for others.
We know from the account in Genesis that Abraham’s choice was felt by him as a sacrifice of happiness; Abraham was not happy to hear the commandment to sacrifice Isaac. Indeed, we believe he felt great sorrow and perhaps even confusion. [9] Yet Abraham was determined to obey God, even if great sorrow and grief befell him as a result. Because Abraham obeyed an exceptional commandment of God and departed from the law, it was counted unto him for righteousness. But that obedience did not turn the departure from the law into the law. God has never since commanded any person to sacrifice their child. In fact, God provided Abraham an escape from killing his son, despite the original exceptional commandment to kill Isaac that God himself gave. In returning to the law (“thou shalt not kill”) after having to depart from it (“sacrifice Isaac”), Abraham felt renewed joy and relief in regaining Isaac. Though he undoubtedly felt paradoxical joy in submitting to God’s will in all things, Abraham’s joy was not full until the test was over and the escape made.
Why is the Lord making the sacrifice of Isaac a direct analogy to his commanding Abraham to take Hagar to wife? We conclude that in this situation, as in the situation concerning Isaac, God commands a departure from the law--something that is, as a general rule, a thing to be condemned by the Lord. That is why the Lord asks, “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation?” According to the general law, or rule, of monogamy in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage set forth by God himself (and not the cultural norms of the time; see Jacob 2:27), and given that God is not indifferent between the two forms of marriage, Abraham is under condemnation--otherwise the Lord’s question makes no sense. But the Lord answers his own question in this fashion: “Nay [he was not under condemnation]; for I, the Lord, commanded it” (vs. 35), thus creating the supersessionary but still exceptional “law” of verse 34. There would be no puzzle and nothing to ask or answer if God was indifferent between monogamy and polygamy. But if God is not indifferent between monogamy and polygamy, then a puzzle does arise--a puzzle that is answered by the Lord with reference to an obvious case of a commandment by God to depart from the general law and follow a lawful exception. This is the strongest possible scriptural evidence that Doctrine and Covenants 132 is in complete harmony with Jacob 2, and that, therefore, the general law or rule of marriage is monogamy and the lawful exception is polygamy and God maintains as strong a discrimination between the two forms of marriage in this dispensation as he did in Jacob’s time.
We can now say why it is that God is not indifferent between monogamy and polygamy: in the Lord’s eyes, monogamy is not a sacrifice, whereas polygamy is. [10] And we are not talking about just any sacrifice: the Lord tells us that polygamy is an Abrahamic sacrifice, but monogamy is no sacrifice at all. No matter what the human inventory of emotions toward polygamy--joy, sorrow, or joy and sorrow mixed--the most mature and most knowledgeable viewpoint is that of the Lord, who appears to be stating that He views it as an Abrahamic sacrifice. The Lord himself reveals his mind on this matter through his analogy between Isaac and Hagar. All other things being equal, God is not indifferent towards the type of sacrifice Abraham was required to make because it involves Christlike suffering. However, as with Abraham’s sacrifice, which points to the priceless sacrifice of the innocent Son of God in the Atonement, sometimes Christlike suffering is the greater good and the most loving course of action because it brings good to others who would not otherwise obtain it. Thus, in a sense, despite the suffering involved in a Christlike sacrifice, there is a joy which comes from knowing that sacrifice is, in God’s eyes, the right and loving thing to command. Furthermore, there is a joy which comes from suffering in God’s cause, because it immeasurably deepens our hope and trust and faith in his goodness and equity. But notice that the presence of joy in a sacrificial act does not remove that act from the category of “sacrifice” to the category of “non-sacrifice” in the Lord’s perspective. We will explore this topic further in a moment.
The Abrahamic sacrifice would mean very little if we did not passionately discriminate between our desire for the happiness God’s law gives us and our antipathy towards abandoning that happiness even if God commands it. If Abraham were indifferent to whether Isaac lived or died, God’s commandment to sacrifice Isaac could not have constituted a test of Abraham’s faith. Likewise, if God were indifferent as to whether Isaac lived or died, there would have been no angel and no ram in the thicket. But an Abrahamic sacrifice is no cold and passionless event; quite the contrary, it is the greatest passion that the human heart can feel. This is an innocent person consciously choosing to release what he knows to be true happiness under God’s loving laws because he loves God more dearly than his own true happiness. This is a sacrifice not justified under the law of God because both Abraham and Isaac were innocent, and though this sacrifice brings a paradoxical joy that comes in choosing faith in God above all, the joy is not complete until the escape is made. Once his test was passed, Abraham’s reward, among other things, was to not have to sacrifice Isaac. Indeed, in a sense Abraham’s reward for offering to sacrifice Isaac was to regain Isaac forever. Though the test was probably given to Abraham because he was so very righteous (Abraham 3:23), his reward for passing the test could not have been perpetuation of the sacrifice. We belabor this point for a good reason, as we shall soon see.
This combination of suffering and joy applies equally well to the Hagar situation. Abraham was not happy at the prospect of killing Isaac, and though sacrificing the joy that flowed naturally from obeying the law prohibiting murder, Abraham obeyed and it was counted unto him for righteousness and deepened the joy that he found in his loving relationship with the Lord. Since the Lord tells us the Hagar situation is analogous, then none of the parties--Abraham, Hagar, Sarah (or for that matter, Ishmael and Isaac)--should have been exempt from suffering in this situation, though the paradoxical joy that accompanies sacrifice would have been present as well. In the Lord’s eyes, all five persons were sacrificing. And what were they sacrificing? The natural joy that comes from the law of marriage--monogamy in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Genesis makes plain that that was in fact the case: no one was happy, and Hagar and Ishmael were forced to leave (Genesis 16, 21). Indeed, God sanctioned their dismissal from the camp, while at the same time miraculously saving Hagar and Ishmael from death in the desert. God didn’t seem to expect or require that they all be happy--he only expected that they trust and obey him, in which obedience they would find the paradoxical joy mentioned above and further his works here on earth.
Furthermore, since Abraham offering to sacrifice Isaac was counted unto him for righteousness, the offering on the parts of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar to depart from the law of marriage was also counted unto them for righteousness. [11] No doubt Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar eventually felt the peace and joy that comes from obeying God’s commandments, all of which--even those commanding Christlike sacrifice--are rooted in God’s perfect love for all his children. Nevertheless, being happy about such a commanded departure from the law does not seem to factor into the counting of one’s obedience to the same commandment unto one for righteousness. After all, a sacrifice remains a sacrifice despite the paradoxical joy experienced.
We know this principle from many situations in the holy scriptures. “Murmuring” against the Lord or rebellion against his will is not acceptable (1 Nephi 2:12; 1 Nephi 7:6-8), but crying out to the Lord in innocent anguish--anguish felt as a result of obeying God’s commands--is completely acceptable. In “murmuring,” one feels the pain of obedience in sacrifice and responds by resenting and even hating God for it. Such a reaction drives a wedge between oneself and God, and even the paradoxical joy that comes from obeying God is lost. Instead of paradoxical joy, the “murmurers” feel only bitterness of spirit. On the other hand, the righteous may cry out in innocent anguish when they feel pain in obedience in sacrifice, but this pain causes them to throw themselves on the mercy and goodness of God. It brings them closer to God and allows them to feel the paradoxical joy of sacrifice, though they still also feel the sacrifice keenly.
We know that Christ himself cried out in pain and anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane; he cried out in pain and anguish on the cross at Calvary. He initially felt to shrink from drinking the bitter cup (Mark 14:36; D&C 19:18), and even asked Heavenly Father why he had forsaken him (Matthew 27:46). Christ was making a sacrifice not justified under the law, because Christ consented to be killed even though he was completely innocent before God and man. His death was a departure from divine law and justice in his own case, but this departure allowed him to fulfill the demands of justice that would otherwise fall on man. His departure from the law in his own case brought about great good for countless others, since all of God’s sons and daughters would otherwise fall to sin by their agency. If Christ himself was not thought less of by God for expressing suffering caused by a departure from divine law, then why would God require mere mortals to be stoic when suffering pain caused by righteous obedience to a commandment to depart from the law? The answer is that he does not. When Abraham also was asked to make a sacrifice not justified under the law, his heart mourned and we do not think less of him for it--and neither did God. Indeed, we know God loved Abraham with great intensity. In truth, if God wept with Christ in Gethsemane and on Calvary, if he wept with Abraham on the road to Mount Moriah, did he not also weep when Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and other righteous polygamous wives and husbands wept? [12] The Lord’s own analogy leads us to believe that he did. Christ, Abraham, and many righteous polygamous wives and husbands felt both suffering and paradoxical joy in their chosen sacrifices.
As noted before, Abraham’s sacrifice and the sacrifice of the polygamous wives and husbands are noble precisely because they point to or typify the sacrifice of Christ. Of Christ was required a sacrifice that could not be justified in his own case because he was pure and innocent. However, this willing sacrifice of the innocent one was performed so that the many might live and obtain life eternal. Abraham’s sacrifice was also willing but Christlike, and given so that the many (all of Abraham’s worthy descendants) would be heirs to the great blessings of eternal life and exaltation given to Abraham. Likewise, the sacrifice of the righteous polygamous wives and husbands in the early days of the Church was willing but Christlike, so that all of their worthy descendants might be raised in righteousness and become heirs of eternal life. These sacrifices are all of a piece, and they all point to the great sacrifice of the Atonement. [13]
The final aspect of the Lord’s analogy between the Isaac situation and the Hagar situation must not be overlooked. Since, in a sense, the Lord is inviting us to reason about two Abrahamic sacrifices, we cannot fail to recognize the theme of eventual relief that pervades both. When Abraham raises his hand to slay his son Isaac, the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said: Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son (Genesis 22:11-13).
The first Abrahamic sacrifice is brought to an end by the Lord, who relieves Abraham from the exceptional commandment which has caused him suffering. The paradoxical joy is replaced by the fuller natural joy. By offering to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham regains Isaac forever. This is a very important element of any Abrahamic sacrifice: it is always eventually brought to an end by God. The lifting of the exceptional commandment comes as a tangible relief to the sacrificer, despite the fact that the sacrificer has not only felt suffering but also paradoxical joy in the sacrifice.
Why does the Lord bring this relief? We can only reiterate that it is because God is not indifferent between a state of sacrifice and a state of relief, and that all other things being equal, he actively prefers eventual relief to perpetual sacrifice for his innocent children. Lest we mistake this natural Fatherly preference, Christ asks rhetorically, “Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:9-11). The great sacrifice to which Abraham’s sacrifices point, the Atonement of our Savior Jesus Christ, was also brought to an end by God. His sacrifice ended, we sing of Christ,
Once rejected by his own/Now their King he shall be known/Once forsaken, left alone/Now exalted to a throne/Once he groaned in blood and tears/Now in glory he appears/ Once he suffered grief and pain/Now he comes on earth to reign/Once upon the cross he bowed/Now his chariot is the cloud/Once all things he meekly bore/But he now will bear no more (Hymn no. 196, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). This sacrificial assignment came to Christ because of his perfect righteousness, but we must understand that though Christ’s sacrifice merited his reward, Christ’s sacrifice did not constitute his reward.
If the Lord has chosen the Isaac-Hagar analogy with care, then we would expect to see an end to the exceptional commandment in this case as well, which end would bring relief. Obedience to God’s exceptional commandment to practice polygamy merited a reward for Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, but it did not constitute their reward. Implicit in God’s sanctioning of Sarah’s demand that Hagar and Ishmael be banished is God’s recognition of the sacrifice and suffering from the point of view of the two mothers involved and his desire to provide relief to them. Interestingly, God does not condemn either woman for feeling the way she does; he seems to accept the negative emotional situation as a natural consequence of the departure from the law he has commanded and agrees to a change in the situation to relieve the tension and sorrow. The appearance of God’s angel to Hagar in two situations and God’s miraculous rescue of Hagar and Ishmael are very important components of this relief (Genesis 16; 21). As we shall see, we believe the separation of Hagar and Ishmael was not the only relief God was to extend. [14]
Before turning to that theme in a later section, we must pause to note the strength of this theme of eventual relief in connection with polygamy in Doctrine and Covenants 132. God extends this analogy of sacrifice and sorrow and eventual relief in relation to polygamy to Joseph Smith’s own personal situation in polygamy in verse 50. Speaking to Joseph Smith, the Lord says, “I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.”
Now, Joseph Smith made many sacrifices in his lifetime. But these other sacrifices by Joseph--deprivation of property, of liberty, and so forth--are not in the same class as an Abrahamic sacrifice because God did not command of Joseph a departure from the law in these cases. In our opinion, the only sacrifices required of Joseph that meet the characteristics present in the case of Abraham sacrificing Isaac were Joseph’s sacrifices in connection with polygamy. Furthermore, all of the surrounding verses are speaking of polygamy, and the only other mention of Isaac in the revelation is in the context of polygamy. The escape is not in reference to escape from enemies or poverty or other travails, because the last phrase about Isaac reiterates that it is an escape from a command the Lord gives that is being discussed. The whole of which verse 50 is a part begins with verse 36, because these are the only two verses in which Isaac is mentioned. In addition, remember that Doctrine and Covenants 132 is not a new revelation initiating the practice of plural marriage for the first time in this dispensation--that initial revelation has already been given, for Joseph had been practicing polygamy for some years already when the revelation of Doctrine and Covenants 132 was given in 1843.
It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that God is speaking of polygamy in verse 50. The Lord is expressing sympathy for the hardships and sorrow imposed on Joseph by this exceptional commandment to depart from the law of marriage. [15] He is promising to count Joseph’s obedience for righteousness, as Abraham’s sacrifice was counted. And, very significantly, he is promising that at some future point Joseph will have an escape from this exceptional commandment to depart from the law of marriage and that the sacrifice and suffering that attended his obedience would come to an end. This exceptional commandment was no doubt given to Joseph because of his great righteousness. But again, we must not fail to understand that Joseph’s practice of the exceptional commandment of polygamy merited him a reward, but it could not conceivably constitute the reward under the conceptual framework that the Lord’s argument lays out for us. Christ chose to sacrifice his life, but he regained it and felt the relief and natural joy that came from living once more; Abraham chose to sacrifice Isaac, but he regained his son and felt the relief and natural joy of embracing Isaac once again. If the Lord chose this Isaac-Hagar analogy with care, and we have every reason to believe he did, then verse 50 is telling us that one day there would be a ram in the thicket for Joseph Smith concerning polygamy, and he would feel the relief and natural joy that attends such an escape.
What might that ram be? The doctrine of sealing transferability is also important in understanding Church doctrine concerning polygamy. Such stand-in, or “proxy,” marriages were common in the early Church, because in the first several decades of the restored Church, one could not be sealed to loved ones who had not been baptized into the Church before they died. Surviving family members were sealed to General Authorities to assure their exaltation. Widows whose husbands had died before hearing the Gospel were sealed to a general authority as the authority’s wife in order to assure their exaltation, and then typically had their husbands sealed to the same General Authority as a child so as “to keep him in the family”! [16] This resulted in many women becoming plural wives because of the mistaken understanding that they could not be sealed to their dead husbands and could not gain their exaltation unless sealed to someone as a wife. For example, women who had never even met Joseph Smith while he was alive were sealed to him after his death; also, one woman had her aged mother sealed to her (the daughter’s) husband shortly before the mother died so that the mother could receive her exaltation. Wilford Woodruff had over 400 of his dead female ancestors sealed to him as wives. These practices seem to indicate that the parties involved understood that the man in question was more of a stand-in or proxy so that the woman could receive the marriage ordinance and thus her exaltation, than an understanding that these women were married in some meaningful sense to these particular men for all eternity. For example, what can it mean to have a dead woman sealed to you, whom you have never met in this life, whose will on the matter you cannot possibly know, and who is in fact one of your great-great grandmothers? Or to have your own mother-in-law sealed to you as a wife? Or, in the case of a woman, to be sealed to a dead man whom you have never met, and whose will on the matter you cannot possibly know? These marriages make sense best as proxy marriages. Indeed, when President Wilford Woodruff announced in 1894 that women could be sealed to their dead husbands (and children to their dead parents) even if the deceased had not been baptized before their deaths, many thousands of sealing transfers took place to rightfully reorganize family lines. [17]
In mortality, when God does command polygamy, he understands it is an exceptional sacrifice by the innocent of the joy that would be theirs if they could obey the law instead, despite the paradoxical joy given to the innocent sacrificer. This departure from the law can cause pain and sorrow, but it brings about a greater good that makes faithful endurance and obedience a source of paradoxical joy. Nevertheless, if his righteous daughters and sons weep because of polygamy--even in times when he commands it--he is not upset at them, but he weeps when they weep because, like Abraham, they are willing to sacrifice and suffer for a time that God’s work of love might be accomplished. And, like Christ, they willingly make a sacrifice that the law itself cannot demand of them because that sacrifice provides the blessings of eternal life for the many.
If we as a culture have lost the capacity to see God-commanded polygamy as the Abrahamic sacrifice God tells us it is, if we have lost the capacity to see that God actively desires there be an escape for the righteous who have obeyed this exceptional commandment, then we have lost something profoundly precious. We have lost the vision of the greatness of God’s love for his children. To lose that vision brings “the gall of bitterness,” as Mormon remarked about others who similarly placed constraints on God’s love of the innocent, for we “deny” the “mercies” of God (Moroni 8:14, 23). If cultural misinterpretations cause the women and men of the Church to mourn over polygamy, either because they mistakenly believe that God is indifferent between sacrifice and nonsacrifice and so no escape from this sacrifice will be provided by God or because they are led to feel that they are selfish and not righteous if they feel pain at the thought of polygamy, then these cultural misinterpretations are actively harming our people. We then have a duty to root out these cultural misinterpretations from our midst, lest they cause great spiritual mischief (Moroni 8:6). [18]
The balm to be had in Gilead on the issue of polygamy is great, indeed. One can only hope that the encrusted scales of our cultural folkways will fall from our eyes as we understand that Jacob of the Book of Mormon and the prophet Joseph Smith received the very same revelation from the Lord.
* This essay is abridged from a chapter in the volume, Women in Eternity, Women of Zion, and is reprinted with the permission of Cedar Fort, Inc.
About Valerie Hudson
Dr. Valerie Hudson, University Distinguished Professor, joined the faculty of the Bush School in 2012 as the holder of the George H. W. Bush Chair. An expert on international security and foreign policy analysis as well as gender and security, she received her PhD in political science at The Ohio State University and comes to Texas A&M University from a senior faculty position at Brigham Young University. Hudson directs the Bush School’s Program on Women, Peace, and Security.
In 2009, Foreign Policy named her one of the top 100 Most Influential Global Thinkers. Her coauthored book Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population, and the research it presents, received major attention from the media with coverage in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times, Washington Post, BBC, CNN, and numerous other outlets. The book also received two national book awards. Another coauthored book, Sex and World Peace, published by Columbia University Press, was named by Gloria Steinem as one of the top three books on her reading list. Another award-winning book, with Patricia Leidl, is The Hillary Doctrine: Sex and American Foreign Policy, published in June 2015. Her newest coauthored book is The First Political Order: How Sex Shapes Governance and National Security Worldwide (Columbia University Press, 2020). She was also named a Distinguished Scholar of Foreign Policy Analysis as well as a Distinguished Scholar of Political Demography and Geography by the International Studies Association.
Dr. Hudson has developed a nation-by-nation database on women, the WomanStats Database, that has triggered both academic and policy interest (the latter includes its use by both the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and various agencies of the United Nations). Using this data, Hudson and her co-principal investigators from the WomanStats Project have published a wide variety of empirical work linking the security of women to the security of states, with research appearing in International Security, American Political Science Review, Journal of Peace Research, Political Psychology, and Politics and Gender.
Dr. Hudson offers courses on women and nations (the foundations course for the Women, Peace, and Security concentration), foreign policy analysis, and a capstone on Women, Peace, and Security. Throughout her career, Dr. Hudson has demonstrated a strong commitment to collaboration with other scholars both in her own field and in other disciplines and has received significant research grants, including grants from the US Department of Defense’s Minerva Initiative and the National Science Foundation, to support her work in international affairs. Her research and teaching experience is also complemented by three major teaching awards and numerous research awards, and she was awarded an Andrew Carnegie Fellowship. She was also a Fulbright Distinguished Chair at the Australian National University in early 2017. Hudson served as vice president of the International Studies Association for 2011-2012. She is a founding editorial board member of Foreign Policy Analysis, and also serves or has served on the editorial boards of The American Political Science Review, Politics and Gender, the American Journal of Political Science, and International Studies Review. More information can be found on her professional website vmrhudson.org.
NOTES
[1] I am indebted to Professor Kathleen Bahr of Brigham Young University for this insight.
[2] Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977), 323.
[3] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., rev. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 577.
[4] This is why polygamous investigators, even if residing in lands where polygamy is legal, cannot be baptized into the Church in this life. Even if the United States of America were to legalize polygamy, members of the Church could not practice it unless the Lord issued a commandment through the prophet sanctioning polygamy among his people.
[5] Some take the words of Isaiah as meaning that God will once again sanction polygamy in the last days. Isaiah predicts a time when “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach” (Isaiah 3:25-26; 4:1). Because of a physical lack of men due to war casualties, women will seek to enter polygamous unions. Indeed, this is a common consequence of devastating war even today: for example, in the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda, it is noted that “There is nothing but widows in this village. There are not too many men. Women share men among themselves to have children. The desire for children is so strong many do not care if the man is faithful. . . There are women here who lost children in the war and they just want to replace them.” (“AIDS Brings Another Scourge to War-Devastated Rwanda,” by James C. McKinley, Jr., The New York Times, 28 May 1998).
As noted in Isaiah, these post-war polygynous unions appear not to be God-sanctioned, because the women initiate the request (as versus the community receiving a commandment from God’s mouthpiece, the prophet), and the marriage does not involve the God-ordained husbandly support and protection due to the wives in question (D&C 83:2). Furthermore, these circumstances are presented in a survey of the horrible consequences that are the reward of the iniquitous. These women will be smitten with “a scab” on the crown of their heads (Isaiah 3:17) and will be afflicted with “stink” and “baldness” and “burning” (Isaiah 3:24). The depiction in Isaiah 4:1 of seven women taking hold of one man is the final element in Isaiah’s description of the punishment of the wicked. Nevertheless, in addition to such cases of polygamy not sanctioned by the Lord it is possible that these calamities will affect the community of the Saints as well (or that for some other reason which God in his infinite wisdom determines), and that Bruce R. McConkie may be correct when he predicts a reinstitution of the “holy practice” of God-sanctioned polygamy around the time of the Second Coming (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., rev. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 577). But we must remain clear that God is under no necessity to do so as part of the restoration of all things.
[6] Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Containing Revelation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 821. This commentary was originally published in 1919.
[7] Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Containing Revelation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 821. This commentary was originally published in 1919.
[8] Quentin L. Cook (2020) “Church History: A Source of Strength and Inspiration,” Ensign, July, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/07/church-history-a-source-of-strength-and-inspiration?lang=eng
[9] Elder Harold Hillam suggests that Abraham’s heart wept throughout this ordeal (Devotional given at BYU, June 25, 1996).
[10] Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl concur, explicitly stating that their analysis of Doctrine and Covenants 132 leads them to the conclusion that the scripture indicates plural marriage “is a sacrifice” (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Containing Revelation [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978], 821).
[11] Note that Sarah and Hagar were also not changed into some sort of “new being” when God issued the exceptional commandment to depart from the law; they were normal women with normal passions and felt the loss of departing from the law of marriage. Likewise, the women of the early Church were not “changed” when God commanded polygamy be practiced. Because they were not changed, they made a righteous and exceptional sacrifice. Those who claim women will be “changed” in the hereafter to accept polygamy seem not to see the significance of this. The natural joy that would be brought by adherence to the law of God is lost even when it is God commanding the departure from the law. Nevertheless, as noted above, there is paradoxical joy in sacrifice and faithful obedience to God’s exceptional commands.
[12] Indeed, it is noteworthy that when Hagar is banished from camp the first time, the angel of the Lord appears to her, comforts her, and tells her that she should name her unborn son Ishmael, which means “God hears,” because “the Lord hath heard thy affliction” (Genesis 16:11).
[13] I am indebted to Ronald Hinckley for this insight.
[14] Elsewhere in the scriptures we find other examples in which God attempts to make the Abrahamic sacrifice of polygamy less of a burden on the woman experiencing heartache. In Deuteronomy 21:15-17, for instance, the firstborn of a despised wife is to inherit twice that of the firstborn of a beloved wife in a polygamous marriage. And in Leviticus 18:18, the Lord commands that a man not marry the sister of his wife, as such a situation would “vex” the wife.
[15] It is personally healing to think of Joseph feeling pain over practicing polygamy. He sacrificed the natural joy that would come from the law of marriage and which was lost in God-commanded departure from the law. Other General Authorities who practiced polygamy also felt initial reluctance upon hearing the commandment; for example, Brigham Young recounted that he envied the dead when he was first taught about it. Initial reluctance to depart from the law of marriage that brings natural joy is thus not only a hallmark of the first reaction of righteous women, it is a hallmark of the first reaction of righteous men, as well. From the perspective outlined in this chapter, we see that this reluctance is not based in some idiosyncratic cultural mores but in the deep law of happiness that pervades all human existence regardless of culture or time period. Of course, we expect Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others eventually felt the paradoxical joy that accompanies Abrahamic sacrifice.
[16] Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830-1900,” BYU Studies 14, no. 3 (1974): 306.
[17] Over 13,000 such sealing transfers occurred. See Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830-1900,” BYU Studies 14, no. 3 (1974): 308-312.
[18] Indeed, in the course of writing this chapter we discovered how great this spiritual mischief can be. The research assistant helping me with this chapter spoke about the issue of polygamy with another of my research assistants, a wonderful young woman from a family active in the Church. The young woman in question stated that she has strong reservations about marrying in the temple for fear that if she died, her husband might remarry and she would become a polygamous wife in heaven. She stated that polygamy sounded like hell, not heaven, to her and she did not want to wind up in such a place. I had no clue that my research assistant felt this way! Another young mother spoke to me of how she held her feelings of love for her husband in check, because she “knew” that if they were worthy to go to the celestial kingdom, he would be assigned many wives. To combat the feeling of anguish and despair this caused her, she tried to love her husband less! One young man, suffering from a life-shortening genetic disorder, was told by his roommates (all returned missionaries) that because of his physical difficulties here on earth, when he got to the celestial kingdom he would be given “hundreds” of “the most beautiful women imaginable” as his reward. The young man replied that he would prefer one not-so-beautiful but loving companion here and in the hereafter. These are but a few of many such cases that space does not permit us to mention. Indeed, these cases bring to mind a quotation by C.S. Lewis: “Not that I am (I think) in much danger of ceasing to believe in God. The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about him. The conclusion I dread is not, ‘So there’s no God after all,’ but ‘So this is what God’s really like. Deceive yourself no longer.’” We cannot allow this spiritual mischief to continue, given that the scriptures revealing the Lord’s mind on the subject provide the needed balm to dispel it completely.