Is Plural Marriage Required for Exaltation?
Sunstone Symposium Response
By Anne Wilde
To Brian Hales’ paper
“Is Plural Marriage Required for Exaltation?”
SLC, August 12, 2006
Introduction
After reading Brian’s 13-page, single-spaced paper, I was somewhat overwhelmed as to where to start and what to include in my brief response. Brian’s tremendous amount of research is very impressive; and if time permitted, I would like to respond point by point, but that’s impossible in my allotted ten minutes.
So, I’d just like to present some information I have studied and learned over the past 40 years which has convinced me that celestial plural marriage is required for exaltation.
In compiling and writing the 1998 booklet An Essential for Exaltation: Celestial Plural Marriage Essential for the Highest Degree of the Celestial Kingdom, I immediately realized that first it was necessary to understand the changes in word definitions since the early days of the LDS Church. Up until the mid-1880’s, the term plural marriage was used interchangeably with celestial marriage, patriarchal marriage, and new and everlasting covenant of marriage. In my book, I’ve included several quotes from Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, Wilford Woodruff, etc., showing that these terms were all used to refer to plural marriage.
However, the definition of these terms was gradually changed to conform with the LDS Church’s change in beliefs, i.e.:
(After 1882 Edmunds Act) Franklin S. Richards stated that celestial marriage meant nothing more than being sealed to a single partner for eternity. This shift [was] taken as one of several moves esigned to lessen hostility toward the Saints. (See B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, p.54)
“Essential to Exaltation” Quotes
Keeping in mind these definition changes, consider the following quotes stating that celestial plural marriage is essential in order to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom. First a couple of scriptures:
D&C 131:1-4:
“In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.”
D&C 132:4 & 6:
“For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. *** And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.”
Pretend for a moment that we had invited some special guests to this session of Sunstone, and asked them to speak on whether or not celestial plural marriage were a requirement for exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. I think they would answer this question the same way now as they did about 150 years ago:
George M. Cannon (son of Angus Cannon)
“John [B. Cannon] recalled that his father [George M. Cannon] took him aside in the library of their home and told him that polygamous living was a requirement if one wished to enter the highest level of the celestial kingdom.” (quoted in Solemn Covenant, B. Carmon Hardy, p. 316)
George Q. Cannon:
Is it not a costly bargain which they are asked to make? To barter off all hope of eternal felicity with wives and children in the celestial presence of God and the Lamb for the miserable favor of the world! So intimately interwoven is that previous doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory.” (Juvenile Instructor 20:136, May 1, 1885)
Abraham Hunsaker:
In open day, a messenger from heaven, with three women clothed in white raiment, stood before him several feet from the ground, and addressed him thus: “You never can receive a full and complete salvation in My Kingdom unless your garments are pure and white and you have three counselors like me.” (LDS Biog. Enc. 3:415)
Heber C. Kimball:
“They (Joseph and Hyrum) had to do the works of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in order to be admitted where they are – they had to be polygamists in order to be received into their society.” (1857, JD 4:224)
Orson Pratt:
“There will be many who will not hearken; there will be the foolish among the wise, who will not receive the new and everlasting covenant in its fullness; and they never will attain to their exaltation;…” (1852, JD 1:65)
Bathsheba Smith: (wife of George A. Smith & 4th Gen. R.S. President)
“Pres. Woodruff, Pres. Young, and Pres. John Taylor taught me and all the rest of the ladies here in Salt Lake that a man in order to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom must have more than one wife, that having more than one wife was a means of exaltation.” (Temple Lot Case; see pp. 359-363; quoted in Most Holy Principle 3:257)
Joseph Smith: (quoted by Wm. Clayton)
“From him [Joseph Smith] I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth and that without obedience to that principle, no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in celestial glory.” (Historical Record 6:226)
“…without it [polygamy] the highest glory could not be attained in heaven.”
(Joseph Smith, First Mormon, Donna Hill, p. 345)
Joseph F. Smith:
“The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage IN PART – and is good so far as it goes…But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.” (JD 20:28)
Lorenzo Snow (while in state prison, 1886)
Last stanza of a song he wrote:
“’Twas eighteen hundred forty-three,
This sacred law was shown to me,
Which gives to men his loving wives,
God’s only path to endless Lives!”
Annie Clark Tanner:
“The principle of Celestial Marriage was considered the capstone of the Mormon religion. Only by practicing it could the highest exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom of God be obtained.” (A Mormon Mother: An Autobiography, Annie Clark Tanner, p.1)
John Taylor:
(1886) “All I those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law.” [plural marriage] And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham? I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof.” [1886 Revelation]
Brigham Young:
(1852—after the revelation on plural marriage was read in August conference)
“It [plural marriage] is all connected with the exaltation of man, showing how he becomes exalted to be a king and a priest – yea, even a God, like his Father in Heaven. Without the doctrine that this Revelation reveals, no man on earth ever could be exalted to be a God.” (JD 6:282)
Newell K. Young:
“Only those who entered plural marriage would become gods.” (Quoted in Solemn Covenant, Hardy, pp. 190 & 310)
Petition for Amnesty (Dec. 19, 1891) signed by First Presidency and 12 Apostles)
“We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.” (Smoot Case Proceedings, 1:18)
An Eternal Law
In many references to plural marriage, the adjective eternal is used. Among the dictionary definitions are “without beginning or end; existing through all time; forever the same; always true or valid; unchanging; always going on; never stopping; timeless; of eternity.”
To me, this means that the eternal principle of plural marriage always has been and always will be true – as a law of God and a law of the Priesthood. It can be a law of the LDS Church when it is voted upon and accepted by the membership of the Church, which occurred in 1852. But keep in mind that Joseph Smith and many other Priesthood leaders lived plural marriage long before it became a law of the Church. They lived it as a law of the Priesthood. When the LDS Church membership voted in 1890 to no longer include plural marriage as a practice of their faith in the incorporated Church, it still continued on as an eternal Priesthood law. Over half of the LDS general authorities, including Wilford Woodruff, took new plural wives after the Manifesto; they did this in obedience to a law of the Priesthood, and separate from and outside of the recently accepted law of the Church.
Doesn’t the following scripture from D&C 130 (v.20-21) apply to the law of plural marriage as well as all other Gospel laws?
“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” Thus, if a law has been suspended, it automatically follows that the blessings for obeying it have also been suspended.
Church history has shown that the Church and the Priesthood can exist separately, and thus their laws and doctrines are not always the same. It has been important for me to recognize this distinction – that the Church can either accept or reject eternal and unchangeable laws, but that does not make them any less true as laws of the Priesthood.
Plural Marriage not for Everyone
Passages in Jacob 2 of the Book of Mormon have often been used as an excuse for not living plural marriage. However, let’s consider the whole context of Jacob 2 and 3. Jacob goes on and on talking about the wickedness and pride of the people in that day and then makes the following statement to these unrighteous people, “For there shall not any man among you [the wicked] have save it be one wife.” (Jacob 2:27) “For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people…because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.” (v.31). Thus it appears that the principle of plural marriage was no longer to be practiced among the wicked, but there is nothing said about it being taken from the righteous.
I should think it would be very difficult for God to watch His children on earth abuse such a sacred law as plural marriage. But just because He says it is no longer required among those who don’t live it righteously, it does not mean that the entire law is revoked from everyone else. For example, would we as parents continue to loan an expensive automobile to our careless teenager, when he does not value and care for it, and continually drives it recklessly and repeatedly damages it, risking his life and the life of others? I would hope not! But by telling this teenager he can no longer drive the car, it does not diminish the value of the car, nor does it prevent someone else from driving it who is more protective and deserving of such an opportunity.
Celestial plural marriage was never intended for everyone. Brian’s statistics about the percentages of men and women don’t bother me at all, because those involved in this eternal principle would be such a small percentage of the total world’s population, that it would just be a “drop in the bucket,” so to speak.
Conclusion
It’s interesting to note that the word exaltation is mentioned only 12 times in the four standard works – all of them in the D&C, and 11 of the 12 are in Section 132, which section, I believe, is talking about celestial plural marriage throughout the entire chapter.
Yes, I do believe that celestial plural marriage is essential for exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom – to be lived either in this stage of mortality or during the Millennium. However, I emphasize CELESTIAL plural marriage, and as Brigham Young said, “it will damn more people than it will save.” Just because someone has lived this principle, either in Biblical times, early Church history, or today, does not automatically qualify them for exaltation. Where much is given, much is expected, and there is a tremendous responsibility that comes with living this principle. I’m grateful that the Lord is the judge, but I’m also very grateful that I was granted the opportunity and privilege to live this principle for 33 years in my lifetime and appreciate the blessings I’ve already received because of it.
