There is, perhaps, no Mormon doctrine more confusing than the doctrine of polygamy.
If one were to read the Book of Mormon, for example, they would find no mention of polygamy being required for salvation. They wouldn’t find a single instance of polygamy being tolerated, even when the number of faithful followers was low. In fact, the only thing they’d find is a direct, unmistakable condemnation of polygamy in all forms.
“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [1]
Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the 1830s. He told very few about the practice. Emma Smith was famously unaware of his polygamous wives until 1843. By the time she was sealed to Joseph Smith, at least 20 other women already called him their husband.
The practice of polygamy was not made public until 1852, when Orson Pratt revealed the commandment to the Saints, under the direction of Brigham Young.
LDS polygamy did not discriminate based on age. There was no limit to the number of wives a man could take. And, interestingly, there was no commandment that a man could not marry a woman who was already married.
In fact, nine of the first eleven women sealed to Joseph Smith were already married and living with their husbands. Thus, polygamy, at least during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, allowed for “polyandry”—the marriage of a woman to more than one husband.
There was never any indication given during Joseph’s presidency to suggest that polygamy was a temporary commandment. This might explain why most fundamentalist branches of Mormonism continue to practice polygamy today. Under Joseph Smith, polygamy was the law, and would remain the law.
William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s scribe, and one of his most trusted friends, spoke of Joseph’s devotion to the commandment.
“From [Joseph], 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 with obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in Celestial glory.” [2]
Polygamy was not just eternal; it was necessary. Many Church leaders claimed the practice to be required for salvation. A man could not be saved if he did not enter into plural marriage.
Brigham Young declared it so. Speaking of polygamy, he claimed that the only people who would receive the highest blessings of salvation are the ones who have many wives.
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” [3]
Joseph F. Smith stated a similar sentiment:
“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind…I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false….[W]hoever 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.” [4]
To further prove that polygamy was a permanent commandment, and would not be changed, Wilford Woodruff offered this declaration in 1889.
“The Lord will never give a revelation to abandon plural marriage.” [5]
He abandoned this claim a year later, when he published his Manifesto against polygamy.
Today, the LDS Church forbids terrestrial polygamy (though polygamy after death is wholly supported.) Any member who practices terrestrial polygamy is excommunicated. The current doctrine against polygamy seems to contradict all of Joseph’s teachings. To Joseph Smith, polygamy was not temporary. It was not an exception to a celestial rule—it was the rule. A man could not be saved without it.
Polyandry
Defenders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints usually make an attempt to defend polygamy, saying that the practice was used to a.) rear children, and b.) seal women in a male-dominant society.
Their attempts are misguided. Eleven of Joseph’s wives were already married to other men, and there is no evidence that any of Joseph’s wives (with the exception of Emma) bore Joseph’s children.
Brigham Young’s wives tell a different story. Many of his wives (there were over 50 in total) bore his children. And, what is worse, Brigham, on at least one occasion, married a woman who was already married.
Zina Diantha Huntington was an early Saint. She joined the Church in 1835. In 1840, Joseph, already married to many women, privately taught Zina the concept of plural marriage and proposed marriage to her. She declined. In 1841, she married Henry Jacobs.
Joseph, who was supposed to officiate the wedding, did not attend the marriage ceremony. Soon after, he spoke to Dimick Huntington, Zina’s brother. Joseph told him that his life was in danger if he was not able to take Zina to wife.
“Tell Zina I have put it off and put it off until an angel with a drawn sword has stood before me and told me if I did not establish that principle [of polygamy] and live it, I would lose my position and my life and the Church could progress no further.” [6]
Concerned for the Prophet’s safety, Zina relented. She was sealed to the Prophet just eight months after her marriage to Henry. She was pregnant with Henry’s son at the time of the sealing.
There is no evidence to suggest that Henry, at the time of his wife’s sealing to the Prophet, knew of the event’s occurrence.
In 1846, following Joseph’s death, Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs was sealed to Brigham Young. She was pregnant with her second child, who would be born just a few weeks later. The child was Henry’s. Henry, this time, was aware of the sealing. Very little was said of the sealing, but the circumstances surrounding it were unusual:
- Henry and Zina were married.
- Zina was already practicing polyandry (the marriage of a woman to more than one husband) with the dead Prophet Joseph.
- Zina was pregnant with Henry’s son.
- There are no contemporary accounts to suggest that Henry and Zina’s marriage was unhappy at the time of her sealing to Brigham.
- Henry was a witness at his wife’s sealing to Brigham Young.
Why would Henry, a faithful, devoted husband serve as the witness to his wife’s marriage to another man?
Little was said on this subject. Though it is the only quote of its kind, William Hall cited Brigham Young’s words to Henry Jacobs on the subject.
“The woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirits.” [7]
If this conversation did happen, it is an essential moment in Church History. Brigham Young never denied the claim. In fact, his doctrines align with the claim: that he was Joseph’s heir in all that Joseph had. He inherited the Seer Stone, the Church, the keys, the Presidency, so why not his wives?
Eight of Joseph’s wives would later marry Brigham.
Many Saints believed that it was the responsibility of Brigham Young to care for Joseph’s widowed brides. He saw to that responsibility well, even to those already married to other men.
Months after Zina’s and Brigham’s marriage, Zina and Henry left Nauvoo to settle in Mount Pisgah. They left together, as husband and wife.
Upon the Saints’ arrival to Mount Pisgah, Brigham Young sent Henry on a mission. Soon, Zina moved into Brigham Young’s house, and began her life as his wife.
In many of his letters, even just a few weeks after his departure, Henry refers to Zina as “companion.” [8] His letters while abroad are tragic. He pleads with Zina for any word about his children. He expresses his love for his wife, his companion, his friend. He expresses his devotion to the Prophet, and, interestingly, asks Zina to tell Brigham that he has “no feelings against him.”
“I feel alone and no one to speak to to call my own. I feel like a lamb without its mother. I do not blame any person or persons, no. May the Lord our Father Bless Brother Brigham and all pertaining unto him forever. Tell him for me I have no feelings against him nor ever have. All is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our [God].
Zina be comforted. Be of good cheer and the God of our Fathers bless you. I know your mind has been troubled about many things, but fear not. All things will work together for good for them that love God. Therefore, be subject to council as you have commenced and you will be saved.” [9]
It is reasonable to assume that Henry’s good will towards Brigham can be attributed to Brigham’s explanation of Zina’s spiritual destiny as his wife. Henry, a faithful husband, would have likely been unwilling to accept Brigham as his wife’s new husband, unless he was first a faithful Saint.
Henry’s letters to Zina during his mission expressed his love and devotion to her. Though Brigham had taken his wife, Henry’s love never faltered.
“Zina I have not forgotten you, my love is as ever the same, and much more abundantly, and hope that it will continue to grow stronger and stronger to all eternity, worlds without end, when families are joined together and become one consolidated in truth, when the keys of the Resurrection will be restored, and the fullness of the Gospel given the Law of the Celestial Kingdom be in force and every man and woman will know their place and have to keep it. Though there will be shiftings in time and revisions in eternity, and all be made right in the end. You told me in your letter that you calculated to start the next morning for the big camp. Well, may the Lord bless you and my little children with life and good health and a safe journey. Take good care of the cow and steers and all I left with you. Keep it safe till I return, for I will then again give my best respects to Brother Brigham and family.” [10]
Henry returned to New York in August of 1857. He did not return to live with his family. Zina was no longer his. She was Brigham’s.
His marriage torn apart, Henry took a new wife in 1847. His devotion to Zina and his children never faded. In 1852, Henry sent a letter to Zina, expressing his heartbreak over the loss of his family.
“I do swear sometimes. I know it is wrong. It does not come from the heart but from the lips, for I know better and am sorry for it and will do better. O Zina do not tell my dear little sweet children of it. I would hate to have them know of their father’s imperfections. O how happy I should be if I only could see you and the little children, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. I mean, I would like to see the little babe; Zina, I wish you to prosper; I wish you knew what I have to bare. My feelings are indescribable. I am unhappy. There is now no peace for poor me. My pleasure is you; my Comfort has vanished; the glory of day has fled like the fog before a pleasant morning. My youthful days are yet in my mind’s eye, never to be blotted out. I have had many a good Dream about you and the little ones. I have imagined myself at home with you and the Little Boys upon my knees, singing and playing with them—what a comfort, what a Joy, to think upon those days that are gone by. O Heaven Bless me if…I [shall] ever see them again.
I think of you often very often Zina. Are you happy? Do you enjoy your life as pleasant as you did with me, when I was at home with you and the Children? When we could say our prayers together, and speak together in tongues, and Bless each other in the name of the Lord? O I think of those happy days that are past; when I sleep the sleep of death, then I will not forget you and my little lambs. I love my affections. I love my Children.” [11]
Henry Jacobs lost his wife and his children to an unsanctioned, non-doctrinal, polyandrous marriage. His life was ruined. Ruined for Brigham’s gain.
Brigham’s Law of Polygamy was incorrectly named. It was the Law of Polygamy and Polyandry, a law which he (specifically) benefited from following.
Polygamy was once a commandment. It was necessary. It was not to be questioned. But, it was not the holy, God-ordained law as we remember it today. It was dirty and filthy and wicked.
What righteous God would allow this? Why would he once allow polyandry, allow polygamy—in fact, command polygamy, but later decide that the practice is wicked? Wicked to the point of excommunication!
Either polygamy was commanded of God, or it was not. If it was, and if God is unchanging, then His doctrine of terrestrial polygamy should still be in practice today. If it was not sanctioned of God, then the original arbiters of polygamy, the founders of the religion, led the Saints astray. And, God, it is said, would never allow His Prophet to lead His Saints astray. In both cases, the practice of polygamy proves the Church untrue. It proves God as a changing one.
[2] Affidavit by William Clayton, February 16, 1874, CHL, MS 3423
[3] Journal of Discourses 11:269
[4] Joseph F. Smith, “Plural Marriage—For the Righteous Only—Obedience Imperative—Blessings Resulting,” Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: William Budge, 1880): 20:4, 28-31
[5] Diaries of Heber J. Grant, p. 89
[6] Zina D. H. Young, “Joseph, the Prophet His Life and Mission as Viewed by Intimate Acquaintances,” Salt Lake Herald Church and Farm Supplement, 12 January 1895, p. 212. She made this statement at a memorial service commemorating Smith’s birthday. This particular meeting was held 24 December 1894 at Salt Lake City’s Sixteenth Ward.
[7] William Hall, The abominations of Mormonism exposed: containing many facts and doctrines concerning that singular people, during seven years’ membership with them: from 1840 to 1847, 1852, pp. 43-4. William Hall claims that this utterance occurred during a public conference of Saints. Henry Jacobs was a resident of Mount Pisgah from May 18, 1846 to June 1, 1846. William Huntington, the leader of the Saints in Mount Pisgah, and Patty Bartlett Sessions, a Saint in Pisgah report of a conference being held on May 31, 1846.
Diary of William Huntington, June 1, 1846 (BYU Special Collections, Vault MSS 272), 37
Diary of Patty Bartlett Sessions [microform] : 1846-1866, 31 May 1846.
[8] Henry B. Jacobs letter to Zina D. Young, 25 June 1846
[9] Henry B. Jacobs letter to Zina D. H. Young
Church Archives, Zina Card Brown family collection, 1806-1972; ZINA D. YOUNG CORRESPONDENCE; Incoming correspondence, 1839, 1846-1847; Henry B. Jacobs letter to Zina D. Young; Church History Library, MS 4780, Box 2, fd 1. Spelling and punctuation corrected.
[10] Letter from Henry B. Jacobs to Mrs. Zina D. Jacobs, Brooklyn, L.I. NY, to Camp of Israel, Grand Island, August 19, 1846, LDS Archives, spelling and punctuation corrected.
