From the comments to this series, Monogamy is the Rule, I have noticed a few points that need clarification. I welcome discussion, and feel like it’s worthwhile to respond to some of those comments in a full post form. Doing so also sets the stage for future posts in the series.

Premise and Intent

To be very clear, the two core points I’m focused on arguing throughout this series are,

1. Plural marriage is not a requirement for exaltation, and
2. If monogamy is the norm in this life for Church members, we should expect that it will be the norm in the next life too, even among the exalted.

I am intentionally using the word “exaltation,” which implies more than just acceptance into the Celestial Kingdom. It is the fullness of salvation, the highest form of living possible, with all that implies. (I intend to look at exaltation more closely in a later post.)

Now, to also be clear, when I say that monogamy is the norm in this life and next, I am not saying that polygamy will not be practiced at all. Yes, there were times when polygamy was practiced in the Church, and yes, the Church has left open a back door approach to setting up plural marriage in the eternities with how sealing ordinances are structured. Plural marriage is an inescapable part of the landscape of Latter-day Saint theology and cosmology—that is not something I am arguing against. All I’m saying is that on the grand scale of things, polygamists will be minority cases and that both monogamists and polygamists can attain exaltation. Thus, statements that later Church leaders like David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Russell M. Nelson, and Dallin H. Oaks believed in polygamy in the afterlife do not run counter to what I’m arguing.

My motivation in writing this series is to address anxiety among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about whether polygamy will be expected of them in the future. I was raised in a cultural milieu in which an underlying current of belief was that polygamy would be expected of people who go to the highest portion of the Celestial Kingdom, whether or not they practiced it in this life. I am working to mentally disentangle myself from this idea through writing, while sharing it in case it resonates with other people. A few core assumptions I carry into the series:

• I believe that prophetic leaders are inspired, but flawed, just like the rest of us. Their words and actions contain gems, but there is also rubble there that we need to be cautious of.
  • I am not interested in arguing that prophets should be followed no matter what. Thus, my goal in writing this series is not to argue that “Napoleon is always right,” like Boxer in Animal Farm, as an apologetic essay for the Church’s current position.
• I believe that things change in the Church and that it’s okay for them to do so. Doctrine, practice, principles, etc., have all changed and are subject to change again. (This will likely be another point I discuss in more depth in a future post.)

 

Plural Marriage and Exaltation

 

One of the main commentators to raise concerns about my approach in this series was Gadianton Rocker, particularly in response to Part 4. One of the central points of Gadianton Rocker’s criticisms is that: “It’s awful hard to reconcile that position with what previous prophets have said. You can cherry-pick quotes, take quotes out of context, and read too much into so-called ambiguities to reach your conclusions.” In other words, Gadianton Rocker wrote, “I certainly am not arguing that polygamy is essential for exaltation. I’m just saying that there is plenty of material from prophets saying that it is, which you are trying to wriggle your way out of with disingenuous analysis.”

This represents a key point at which my research has led me to different conclusions than Gadianton Rocker. Yes, there is plenty of material from Church leaders in the nineteenth century to say that polygamy is essential for exaltation. That is something that I mention in Part 2, and have mentioned previously as well. However, there is a wide gulf between there being plenty of material and there being a unanimous acceptance of an idea as unchangeable doctrine. Even during the zenith of polygamy in the Church, not everyone in the Church believed that polygamy was essential to exaltation. Some of the Church leaders who made statements that polygamy was essential to exaltation also made contrary statements when asked directly about it. Jonathan Stapley, for example, discusses this in detail in his forthcoming book Holiness to the Lord: Latter-day Saint Temple Worship.

In Part 2 of this series, I mentioned one example from a journal entry by Wilford Woodruff on February 12, 1870, in which President Brigham Young “said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.”^[1] Taken alone, I can see why Gadianton Rocker would feel like I was cherry-picking quotes. The statement, however, is part of a broader pattern that indicates that earlier Church leaders were not always adamant that plural marriage was essential to exaltation. Consider the following examples that were mentioned in Stapley’s work:

• On June 18, 1870, in Paris, Idaho, “President David P. Kimball asked a question with regard to the glory to be obtained by those having one or more wives. President [Brigham] Young explained it by a parable of measures of various capacities and said that all were not equal in their capacities for glory but all would receive Celestial glory if they held out faithful to the end whether they had but one wife or many.”^[2]
• On June 10, 1871, again in Paris, Idaho, “President [Charles] Rich concluded by saying a man who had one wife sealed to him by the Priesthood was in the same covenant and entitled to the same promises and the same conditions as he who had more. Both are on a level concerning promises and satisfaction. All endowments and sealings are on condition that those who receive them continue in the Covenant. Any person depending on promises alone for his salvation will be greatly mistaken.”^[3]
• A few weeks later, July 15, 1871, Paris, Idaho, when asked yet again about whether polygamy was essential for exaltation, “President [Brigham] Young answered … a man can obtain as full a salvation with one wife as with more but it will not be so great. His work will be slow, but it would be better for us to enquire about the duties of today than about things we do not understand.”^[4]

Stapley added that debates were being held elsewhere in Utah, and that even polygamy ultra-defender John Taylor indicated that there were circumstances in which monogamists could be justified and exalted. Thus, Stapley notes, “It was this complexity that allowed church leaders to eventually abandon the practice of polygamy and redefine ‘celestial marriage’ as monogamous eternal marriage as the only requirement for exaltation.”^[5] That complexity also provides room for the arguments that I am making.

 

Normative and Positive Statements

Another key concern that Gadianton Rocker voiced was that “I think your core problem is being able to distinguishing between normative and positive statements.” Positive statements are objective claims about how the world is, while normative statements are subjective claims about how the world should be. Positive statements can be tested and verified with evidence, whereas normative statements involve value judgments and opinions.

In general, I trust that people will critically read what I write and discern for themselves where I’m presenting facts and where they are reading my interpretation of those facts. That is why I try to be very transparent with my sources, citing them and including links wherever possible, so it is easy for people to check them. My training in writing historical essays ingrained in me that it is redundant to state when something is my personal opinion—the fact that I’m writing it indicates that it is my opinion by default.^[6] Further, by virtue of the fact that I’m writing on an internet blog that has no peer review, you should be questioning everything I say and evaluating it for yourself. I can relate to J. Golden Kimball’s statement: “In my public talks I feed the people on some chaff and a few grains of wheat and take it they have ordinary common horse sense and will choose the wheat.”^[7] While I don’t intend to include chaff, it’s going to end up in anything I say or do. Regardless, I will try to delineate between these types of statements through a recap of the series.

 

Recap of the series:

In the article “Monogamy is the Rule, Part 1: Revelation Adapted to the Circumstances”, I argued that God’s commandments are sometimes adapted to the needs of His people, with plural marriage serving as one example of this principle. While monogamy is the general standard that the Lord has revealed for His children, there have been periods when He has commanded exceptions, such as the introduction of polygamy under Joseph Smith. I stressed that these shifts do not reflect inconsistency in God’s will but rather a divine pattern of tailoring commandments to circumstances, as seen elsewhere in scripture and Church history. Today, the rule reaffirmed by Church leaders is monogamy, showing that revelation can both expand and contract practices over time according to what the Lord requires of His people. All of the points that I argued here are normative statements.

In “Monogamy is the Rule, Part 2: Celestial Marriage and Plural Marriage,” I explored how the concept of sealing—linking families through the “keys of this dispensation” revealed in 1836—became intertwined with plural marriage, complicating the modern understanding of what constitutes a “celestial marriage”. I highlighted that early Latter-day Saint leaders, during a time when plural marriage was practiced, often used terms like “celestial marriage,” “eternal marriage,” and “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” interchangeably with plural marriage. However, after the Church discontinued plural marriage in the late 19th century, leaders reevaluated the meaning: the First Presidency eventually stated that “celestial marriage—that is, marriage for time and eternity—and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms,” affirming that all temple-sealed marriages (including monogamous ones) now constitute celestial marriages. (Thus far, those are positive statements.) I argued that with historical distance from the pressures of federal opposition and the lived reality of plural marriage, it’s now more appropriate and accurate to interpret the doctrinal language of Doctrine and Covenants sections 131 and 132—originally formulated in plural marriage contexts—as also applicable to monogamous eternal marriages. (That’s the normative statement.)

In “Monogamy is the Rule, Part 3: The 1886 Revelation”, I examined a revelation received by Church President John Taylor on September 27, 1886, amid intense federal pressure to end plural marriage. The revelation emphasized that divine commandments—including the New and Everlasting Covenant—cannot be revoked by human authorities and will endure eternally, implying that plural marriage remained binding at that time. (Positive statements so far.) I set the stage for the next post by raising the question of how such a revelation should be understood today, considering the Church’s established stance that monogamy is the rule and polygamy is now regarded as an exception.

In “Monogamy is the Rule, Part 4: Guardrails”, I addressed the implications of John Taylor’s 1886 revelation in the context of the Church’s current stance on monogamy. I emphasized that revelations, including the 1886 one, are not unfiltered divine decrees but are influenced by the circumstances and perspectives of their time. Thus, I argued that interpreting such revelations requires careful consideration of the historical context and the evolving understanding of doctrine. I suggested that the Church’s present emphasis on monogamy as the standard for marriage reflects a shift in divine guidance, adapting to the needs and circumstances of the current era. (This post was mostly normative statements.)

In “Monogamy is the Rule, Part 5: The Rule of One”, I continued to examine the complexities surrounding John Taylor’s 1886 revelation and its implications for the continuation of plural marriage within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While Taylor’s testimony suggested that he had delegated authority to perform plural marriages to various individuals (a positive statement), I argued that such delegation was not intended to be perpetual (a normative statement). Only the sitting Church president holds the authority to authorize such practices, and any delegation of that authority would be subject to revocation (normative statement based on the normative statements of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, and Heber J. Grant). My analysis underscored the importance of centralized leadership and the principle that doctrinal practices are determined by current prophetic guidance, rather than by actions or permissions granted by past leaders (normative statement).

 

Hopefully, this clears up some confusion about this series.

 

---

Footnotes:

^[1] Wilford Woodruff, Journal (October 22, 1865—December 31, 1872), p. 235, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/p/BBBk.

^[2]School of the Prophets Paris record book, 1869–1872, June 18, 1870, digital images of manuscript, CR 390 3, CHL, https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/c8aa2ed0-5f20-4cf9-ba15-4a597a2452b5/0/22?lang=eng.

^[3] School of the Prophets Paris record book, 1869–1872, June 10, 1871, https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/c8aa2ed0-5f20-4cf9-ba15-4a597a2452b5/0/42?lang=eng.

^[4] School of the Prophets Paris record book, 1869–1872, July 15, 1871, https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/c8aa2ed0-5f20-4cf9-ba15-4a597a2452b5/0/43?lang=eng.

^[5] Jonathan Stapley, Holiness to the Lord: Latter-day Saint Temple Worship (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2025), 100–103.

^[6] “There’s rarely cause to use the phrase ‘I think’ in a sentence. … We know what you think—you’re saying so.” (Jim Cullen, Essaying the Past: How to Read, Write, and Think about History (Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009), 124.)

^[7] Cited in Ardis E. Parshall, “From the Notebook of J. Golden Kimball (3 of 3).” Keepapitchin.org, 23 Apr 2015, https://keepapitchinin.org/2015/04/23/from-the-notebook-of-j-golden-kimball-3-of-3/.