Plural Marriage in Utah

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Polygamy Sandbox > Plural Marriage in Utah

Plural Marriage in Utah

Summary: This page gathers and responds to all questions surrounding the practice of plural marriage in Utah by leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

---

Did early Church leaders admit that there were many difficulties with plural marriage that caused “problems” and “great sorrow”?

Plural marriage, like any social system, had challenges—but critics often present selective quotations

Critics sometimes claim that early Latter-day Saint leaders “admitted” that plural marriage was marked by conflict and sorrow. To support this assertion, they frequently cite statements from leaders such as Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young. However, a closer examination of the full context of these remarks shows that they were not confessions of systemic failure or misery, but pastoral counsel addressing ordinary human weaknesses. One oft-cited statement from Kimball reads:

There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances.

When presented in isolation, this quotation is framed as evidence of pervasive domestic strife within plural families. Yet when read in context, Kimball’s remarks were part of a broader sermon urging Saints to seek the Spirit of God, cultivate peace, and avoid contention in their homes.

He admonished his listeners to read scripture, stay engaged in productive pursuits, and “stop your quarrelling.” His reference to contention between wives was illustrative—not a sweeping indictment of plural marriage. In fact, he immediately clarified that such behavior was absent in well-ordered households, including his own and those of other Church leaders. The thrust of his message was that spiritual maturity and common sense eliminate unnecessary conflict—hardly an admission of unavoidable “great sorrow.”

Brigham Young’s remarks addressed human nature, not the failure of plural marriage

Critics also cite a statement from Brigham Young recounting that one of his wives once said:

I wish my husband's wives would leave him, every soul of them except myself.

Again, isolated from its setting, this comment is portrayed as confirmation of jealousy and misery within plural marriage. However, the broader discourse paints a different picture.

In that sermon, Young was emphasizing the high level of respect shown to women in Latter-day Saint society. His reference to a wife’s candid remark illustrated a point about natural human feelings—particularly the universal tendency toward exclusivity in marriage relationships. Significantly, Young generalized the sentiment as something felt “more or less, at times” by women of all ages. This was not a lament about plural marriage uniquely producing sorrow, but an acknowledgment of ordinary human emotions. The remainder of the discourse stressed kindness, courtesy, and respect toward women in the community. Far from describing a system collapsing under strain, Young portrayed a society striving—however imperfectly—to live religious principles while accommodating human nature.

Context matters

Plural marriage was a complex social institution that required patience, selflessness, and spiritual commitment. Early Church leaders did not deny that it demanded sacrifice. But acknowledging human weakness, occasional jealousy, or the need for harmony is not the same as admitting systemic “great sorrow.”

When read in full context, the cited sermons by Kimball and Young function as moral exhortations—encouraging unity, peace, and charity—not as confessions that plural marriage was inherently dysfunctional. Selectively extracting emotionally charged lines from lengthy sermons risks misrepresenting both the speakers and their intent.

A fair reading of the historical record shows leaders counseling their communities on how to overcome challenges—not conceding that those challenges defined the institution itself.

Did Brigham Young and Joseph Smith say that polygamists were permitted to go beyond the bounds of normal social interaction?

Critics have argued that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young described plural marriage in terms that imply freedom to step beyond ordinary moral or social limits. This interpretation relies heavily on Brigham Young’s later recollection of a conversation with Joseph Smith regarding the introduction of plural marriage.

A close reading of the historical material, however, shows that the word “bounds” is being misunderstood.

What did Joseph mean by “bounds”?

In recounting his early hesitation about plural marriage, Brigham Young remembered worrying that he might take an additional wife and later falter, thereby jeopardizing his salvation and harming his family. According to his account, Joseph Smith reassured him:

There are certain bounds set to men, and if a man is faithful and pure to these bounds, God will take him out of the world; if he sees him falter, he will take him to himself. You are past these bounds, Brigham, and you have this consolation.

Some have read “bounds” here as though it meant moral limits—restrictions beyond which normal rules no longer apply. But that is not how Brigham understood the term.

In early nineteenth-century usage, “bounds” could refer not merely to prohibitive limits but to the full scope or extent of one’s assigned obligations. In Brigham’s telling, Joseph was not suggesting that he was now free to transgress moral standards. Rather, he was affirming that Brigham had already fulfilled the duties required of all disciples to such a degree that his ultimate salvation was secure. The “bounds” were not lines he could now step over without consequence; they were the encompassing obligations he had faithfully met.

Importantly, Joseph told Brigham he was already “past these bounds” before entering plural marriage. That fact alone undermines the interpretation that polygamy itself was the “boundary” being crossed. The reassurance was about Brigham’s proven faithfulness—not permission to suspend moral norms.

Not license, but added responsibility

In the same discourse, Brigham described how difficult the command was for him personally:

Joseph said to me, ‘I command you to go and get another wife.’ I felt as if the grave was better for me than anything…

This is not the language of someone viewing plural marriage as liberation from moral restraint. It is the language of a man who experienced the command as a heavy and painful duty. His reaction underscores that plural marriage was, in his view, an enlargement of responsibility—not a relaxation of standards.

The imagery of “bounds” fits naturally in this framework. Brigham had already striven to fulfill all that God required of him. Now, the circumference of his duty was expanding. It was not that he was stepping “outside” moral law; rather, more was being asked within it.

A parallel account: Heber C. Kimball

A similar dynamic appears in the experience of Heber C. Kimball. He, too, reportedly feared that accepting plural marriage might overwhelm him spiritually. Joseph sought divine reassurance and relayed that if Kimball were ever in danger of apostatizing, God would “take him to himself.”

Again, the pattern is consistent: plural marriage was perceived as so demanding that it would not be required of those whose salvation might genuinely be imperiled by it. The promise was protective, not permissive. It was meant to calm fears of failure—not to suggest that moral barriers no longer applied.

Did plural marriage suspend normal rules?

The claim that Brigham Young conceded that “normal rules governing social interaction” did not apply to Joseph Smith does not reflect the plain thrust of the narratives. Neither Joseph nor Brigham describes plural marriage as an exemption from morality. Instead, they portray it as an Abrahamic test—difficult, counterintuitive, and spiritually weighty.

For its earliest practitioners, plural marriage was framed not as indulgence, but as sacrifice. The recurring themes are reluctance, anxiety, prayer, and submission—not freedom from restraint. To read “bounds” as moral fences being gleefully leapt over is to import a modern assumption foreign to the speakers’ own understanding.

When the sources are allowed to speak in their full context, “bounds” refers to divinely assigned duties already fulfilled—not to social norms discarded.

Did Brigham Young boast about his ability to get more wives even though he already had 50-60?

Do the cited sources show “boasting”?

Critics sometimes allege that Brigham Young brazenly boasted about his ability to attract additional wives, even while already married to dozens of women. When the cited sermons are examined in context, however, the claim does not hold up. The remarks in question appear either humorous, rhetorical, or theological—not expressions of vanity or sensual pride.

As is often the case, isolated lines are detached from their setting and presented in the most sensational possible light. A fuller reading tells a different story.

Journal of Discourses 5:210

In the first cited passage, Brigham Young was speaking about the return of Thomas B. Marsh to the Church. His comments were made in a comparative and somewhat playful tone, contrasting Marsh’s aged and infirm condition with his own vigor.

He said:

Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congregation that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men.

Read in isolation, this sentence may sound like self-congratulation. In context, however, Young’s point was theological and rhetorical. He immediately attributed vitality and youthfulness to the influence of the Spirit of God, declaring that “‘Mormonism’ keeps men and women young and handsome.” His emphasis was on spiritual vitality—not romantic conquest.

The remark functions as humorous hyperbole designed to underscore his theme. It is not a literal attempt to solicit wives or parade marital prospects. Indeed, in the very same discourse, he lightly teases Marsh—suggesting that plural marriage need not trouble him because he doubted Marsh “could get one wife.” The tone is unmistakably conversational and joking.

Framed within the sermon’s broader message, the statement reinforces Young’s claim that faithfulness brings spiritual vigor. It does not read as a serious boast about romantic opportunity.

Journal of Discourses 8:178

The second quotation comes from a passage in which Young reportedly declared that he would have “wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom…”

Once again, context is crucial. This language reflects Latter-day Saint teachings about eternal increase and exaltation—not earthly marriage statistics. The imagery of “million” wives and children is clearly hyperbolic and eschatological, pointing toward a theological vision of eternal posterity rather than temporal polygamous expansion.

To treat such language as a literal, present-day boast misreads the genre and tone of nineteenth-century Mormon preaching. The rhetoric is expansive and symbolic, typical of discussions about eternal progression and divine inheritance.

What do the sources actually show?

Neither cited discourse presents Brigham Young as gloating over his marital situation or publicly scheming for additional wives. In one case, the statement is a humorous aside in a sermon about spiritual vitality. In the other, the language is overtly theological, describing eternal increase.

Careful readers will recognize that nineteenth-century sermons often combined wit, exaggeration, doctrinal instruction, and pastoral encouragement. Extracting a single vivid phrase without its rhetorical setting can distort its meaning. When the full context is considered, the claim that Brigham Young “boasted” about collecting more wives is not supported by the very sources used to advance it.

Why did Brigham Young say that women have no right to meddle in the Kingdom of God?

Was Brigham dismissing women—or speaking about priesthood governance?

A statement by Brigham Young that women “have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God” is sometimes cited as evidence that he was authoritarian or dismissive of women. When the fuller context of the remark is examined, however, his meaning becomes clearer—and far more specific—than the isolated phrase suggests.

As quoted in Mormon Hierarchy by D. Michael Quinn (and subsequently used by Sally Denton), the fuller statement reads:

[women] have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God[—]outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent [than men] to attend to things of financial affairs. they never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands.

Far from questioning women’s competence, Brigham explicitly affirms that many women were “more sagacious & shrewd & more competent” than men in financial and practical matters. His statement distinguishes between two spheres: temporal affairs (where he openly praises women’s abilities) and priesthood governance (which he reserves to ordained male leaders, consistent with Latter-day Saint structure at the time).

In this light, “meddling” refers not to women thinking, organizing, or contributing—but to assuming priesthood authority or directing priesthood governance.

Historical setting matters

The remark appears to have been made in a period of internal Church tension following the death of Joseph Smith. During this time, questions of authority and organization were particularly sensitive. Some scholars have suggested that the statement may have been influenced by earlier conflicts involving Emma Smith and the Relief Society, especially in matters intersecting with priesthood decisions.

Brigham’s follow-up comment further clarifies his concern:

When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see females huddling together veto the concern.

His emphasis is on centralized priesthood direction during a fragile period of Church leadership. The issue under discussion was governance and keys—not women’s intellectual, financial, or spiritual capability.

Avoiding presentism

To modern ears, language such as “have no right to meddle” can sound harsh or exclusionary. It is important to read such statements within their nineteenth-century setting. Concepts of gender roles—held not only by Brigham Young, but by most men and women of his era—differed significantly from contemporary expectations.

At the same time, it is worth noting that Brigham Young supported women’s education and professional training in ways that were comparatively progressive for his day. He encouraged women to pursue schooling and even facilitated training for female physicians in the eastern United States—an unusual step in mid-nineteenth-century America.

What was Brigham actually asserting?

Brigham Young’s statement was not a declaration that women were incapable, unintelligent, or unworthy. In fact, he plainly said the opposite regarding many practical matters. His assertion was structural and ecclesiastical: priesthood keys and governance belonged to ordained holders of priesthood authority.

One may debate or disagree with that framework, but the historical record shows that his comment addressed questions of priesthood jurisdiction—not women’s general competence or value.

When the full context is considered, the quotation reflects a dispute about ecclesiastical order during a pivotal moment in Church history—not a blanket condemnation of women’s abilities or contributions.

John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation

John Taylor, third President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was in hiding from federal agents in 1886 over the Church's then-current practice of plural marriage. During that time, President Taylor received a revelation that some interpret to mean that the Church would never abandon the practice of polygamy. Many in the Fundamentalist branches who live the practice today believe that their leaders were present when John Taylor secretly commissioned them to continue it. This is problematic considering the Church's abandonment of plural marriage beginning in 1890.

While previous generations have been uncertain of the revelation’s text and provenance, Church historians have confirmed the revelation’s authenticity and, in 2025, the original revelation was digitized and uploaded to the Church's online catalogue of historical documents hosted on its website.

The text of the revelation reads:

My Son John, You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, and how far it is binding upon my people; Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, or I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times, and furthermore; It is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And I have 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. Even so, Amen.

---

Historical Context

The federal government of the United States had opposed Latter-day Saint plural marriage for decades, and that opposition continued to escalate. In March 1881, for example, during his inauguration address, President James A. Garfield condemned the Church because it “offends the moral sense of manhood” for allowing polygamy and not allowing those who practiced it to be punished under the law. After his assassination several months later, Garfield’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, also condemned polygamy as an “odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom.”

While anti-polygamy legislation and commentary did use the term “polygamy,” it should be noted that early Saints very carefully differentiated between polygamy (what they saw as something foreigners engaged in), adultery, “spiritual wifery” (what John C. Bennett engaged in), and celestial or plural marriage. “Polygamy” is a broader term that can be further broken down into polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) and polygyny (a man with multiple wives). Though the phrasing used by the Saints began to change once they arrived in Utah Territory, the preferred term used by the Church today is still “plural marriage.“

In February 1882, apostle and First Presidency member George Q. Cannon was denied his seat in the U. S. House of Representatives because he had multiple wives. Just a month later, the Edmunds Act was passed by Congress, making polygamy a felony and disenfranchising those who engaged in the practice. Additionally, it eliminated the need to prove an illegal marriage had taken place, as it also prohibited “unlawful cohabitation.” Polygamists were unable to serve on juries or hold public office, and the bill also targeted those who merely supported polygamy, such as the bulk of Latter-day Saints who accepted plural marriage but did not live the practice themselves. All elected positions in Utah were voided and new elections were required, and eventually, more than one thousand Latter-day Saints were imprisoned under the act.

President Cannon’s brother, Angus Munn Cannon, was arrested in January 1885. In December of that same year, his final appeal failed to overturn his conviction. Just four days after the decision was announced, federal officers began raiding towns in Utah Territory, hunting for polygamists. Further federal laws targeting Latter-day Saints were passed over the next few years, until the Manifesto was announced in 1890.

In September 1886, when the revelation was received, many Church leaders were in hiding. The apostles were scattered across multiple states and cities to avoid prosecution, and they debated whether it was time to end plural marriage or allow the persecution of the Saints to continue. They grappled with the decision, because for half a century, the Saints had sacrificed for and lived the practice. Many Church members defined themselves by it, and they had spent so many years defending it and their right to engage in it, enduring humiliation and persecution on all sides, that it was an integral part of their identity. Families were entwined in the practice, and separating themselves from it would be incredibly difficult and painful for all involved. It was under these circumstances that President Taylor turned to the Lord for advice and counsel.

Due to the scattered nature of the apostles at the time in which it was received, the revelation was never brought to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, or the Church membership, for canonization. Meeting as a body to conduct Church business in the late 1880s was impossible. Even if you consider Elder John W. Taylor’s 1911 excommunication hearing as being the moment in which the revelation was presented to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, however, it was not accepted by the Apostles. Therefore, unlike the 1890 Manifesto, the revelation is not authoritatively binding on the Church.

Did the Church Lie About the Revelation?

Between the years of 1886 and 1933, the existence of the revelation was uncertain to many. At some point, Elder John W. Taylor, a then-member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and President John Taylor’s son, located the physical copy of the revelation among his father’s things and copies of the revelation were passed around to certain individuals. A week before the first Manifesto was issued, Elder Heber J. Grant recorded in his journal that John W. Taylor had told the Quorum about the revelation. Elder Taylor then showed a copy of it to the Quorum of the Twelve during his excommunication hearing in 1911 (he was excommunicated for continuing to fight against the First and Second Manifestos). Some Church leaders believed in its authenticity, while others disputed it. It was rejected as being authoritative by the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Manifestos were upheld.

The First Presidency released a statement in June 1933, calling it a “purported revelation” and saying it was not located in the Church archives. At the time of the statement, that was true. Joseph Fielding Smith, who was then both an apostle and an Assistant Historian of the Church, had a copy, but it was not the original document, and it was kept in the Church Historian’s Office rather than in the official First Presidency's Church archives. Other copies were reportedly housed in the “Special Documents Department” of the Historian’s Office, which was also a separate archive. Thus, the First Presidency statement appears to have been another carefully worded denial like those made during the early days of plural marriage.

Approximately one month after the statement was released, Frank Y. Taylor, another son of President Taylor, gave the original revelation to the First Presidency. While in the Church’s possession, the document has been made available to historians for research purposes, though its authenticity was still disputed by some Church leaders. At some point in the 2000s, over a century after it was received, the revelation was finally confirmed to be authentic through handwriting analysis and other processes. In June 2025, was digitized and put on the Church’s online library of historical documents.

Should the Church have announced it had the revelation in its possession after it was received? Perhaps. But with Fundamentalist Mormon sects claiming it gave them authority and using it to suggest the mainstream Church was in apostasy, the decision not to broadcast it is understandable—especially as it was disputed and could not be fully authenticated for over a century.

The New and Everlasting Covenant

Does this revelation say that plural marriage can never be revoked? No. While some Fundamentalist branches that have broken off from the Church interpret the revelation that way, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the “new and everlasting covenant” refers to more than just plural marriage.

For example, Brigham Young taught, “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter into the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, and that, too, upon the validity of their own salvation, that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world.”

Historian Brian Hales explained that, therefore, to Latter-day Saints, “The new and everlasting covenant is the fullness of the gospel because it encompasses all of the covenants required for exaltation. … Within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, plural marriage cannot be accurately characterized as a ‘law,’ a ‘condition of the law,’ or a ‘covenant.’ Instead, historically it has been treated as a ‘commandment’ that could be mandated or revoked.”

In 1882, John Taylor echoed this clarification when he said, “So far as it [celestial marriage] is made known unto men, it is … part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant.”

Approximately a year later, he also taught, “[God] has revealed unto us the Law of Celestial Marriage, associated with which is the principle of plural marriage.”

The Doctrine and Covenants even refers to the Book of Mormon and “the former commandments” which the Lord gave His people, as the “new covenant.”

Thus, Latter-day Saints do not need to interpret the revelation as saying that plural marriage can never be revoked. Rather, it is saying that the fullness of the gospel and its accompanying covenants cannot be revoked. Plural marriage, conversely, comes and goes according to the will of God. It is a commandment only when He commands it, and it is revoked when He doesn’t command it.

The “New and Everlasting Covenant” in Latter-day Saint Scripture

It is common for critics to insist that “the new and everlasting covenant” can only refer to plural marriage. But, this is not consistent with Latter-day Saint scripture:

• The Old Testament frequently referred to the “everlasting covenant” which God had established with Noah (Genesis 9:8-16), and Israel (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
• Hebrews asserts that Christ's sacrifice is the basis of the “everlasting covenant”: Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant... (Hebrews 13:20).
• In 1830, the Lord declared of baptism into the restored Church: “this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning” (Doctrine and Covenants 22꞉1).

None of these covenants had anything necessarily to do with plural marriage; they certainly did not exclusively refer to plural marriage.

The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the covenant, and it is clear that the reference is generally to the gospel covenant, not to plural marriage (emphasis added in all cases):

Doctrine and Covenants 45 (March 17, 1831)

I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life. And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me (Doctrine and Covenants 45꞉8-9).

Doctrine and Covenants 49 (March–May 1831)

Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning (Doctrine and Covenants 49꞉8-9).

Doctrine and Covenants 66 (October 25, 1831)

Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel... (Doctrine and Covenants 66꞉2).

Doctrine and Covenants 76 (February 16, 1832)

[Telestial kingdom is those who] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant... (Doctrine and Covenants 76꞉101).

Doctrine and Covenants 84 (September 1832)

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written— (Doctrine and Covenants 84꞉57).

Doctrine and Covenants 88 (December 27, 1832)

[In the school of the prophets] Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant....[and say] I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship...through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever.(Doctrine and Covenants 88꞉131-133).

Doctrine and Covenants 101 (December 16, 1833)

When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and covenant with an everlasting covenant, they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men....(Doctrine and Covenants 101꞉39).

Thus, the “everlasting covenant” or “new and everlasting covenant” may refer to the gospel message and its restoration. This phrase is also used, however, in the revelation on plural marriage—we will label this “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” (compare Doctrine and Covenants 131).

The revelation on plural marriage (Doctrine and Covenants 132) describes a similar idea:

4 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.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.(Doctrine and Covenants 132꞉4-6)

This “new and everlasting covenant” has a “law” and “conditions thereof,” and one must “abide the law.” What is the law and conditions?

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead (Doctrine and Covenants 132꞉7).

The law and conditions of the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” are that such relationships must be sealed by priesthood authority (vested in one man only, the President of the Church) and the Holy Spirit of promise. This law encompasses both monogamous and polygamous marriage.

There is, as Brian Hales has noted, no scriptural mention of “the law of plural marriage,” nor did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor ever use this term. (In fact, references to “the law” of plural marriage tend to crop up far more frequently in Fundamentalist writings.) It may be significant that this revelation repeatedly refers to both “the law” and covenants (which will not change) and “commandments” by which one is bound by the covenant (which may change or vary from person to person and time to time).

Was There an 8-Hour Meeting Followed by Ordinations After the Revelation was Received?

There are no records of John Taylor’s revelation or of any meetings or visions associated with it during the final year of his life. At some point after his passing on July 25, 1887, rumors of President Taylor being visited by Joseph Smith and the Savior began to spread. In 1912, those rumors began to be associated with the 1886 revelation, and from there, the story grew larger and larger over time. Eventually, the story developed that, after a night spent in visions, President Taylor called for thirteen individuals to come to where he was in hiding, where an eight-hour meeting commenced, during which Joseph Smith allegedly appeared. Directly following that meeting, another meeting was held in which five men—all from outside the leadership of the Church—were ordained and put under covenant to continue plural marriage outside of the mainstream of the Church.

Mormon Fundamentalist Lorin C. Woolley was the main voice spreading the story, and new details seemed to emerge with each retelling. While one or two others corroborated small portions of his story, none corroborated it in full. None of those allegedly present recorded the meetings at the time, and no rumors of these collective visions, or of the ordinations or covenants, were shared in either the aftermath of the revelation or of John Taylor’s death. It is telling that Woolley did not begin sharing details of these purported meetings until well into the 1920s, after the others he named had passed away.

As Brian Hales noted, “It is puzzling that the meeting created no discernable stir or excitement among the thirteen men and women who reportedly witnessed it. No mention of the proceedings is found in any letter or diary from that era, no secondhand retellings, and no rumors or stories were echoed by devout pluralists. The lack of any contemporaneous references in the historical record indicates the described meeting must have flashed upon the scene, colliding with the quiet spiritual status quo of the participants, and then disappeared into thin air. All available documents fail to identify a resurgence of faith and a revival of determination in the fall of 1886 arising as a consequence of an experience of President John Taylor with the Divine that was witnessed by more than a dozen people. … In summary, explaining the thirty-five-year silence that followed the reported meeting and the lack of any discernible contemporaneous record or impact in the lives of the described participants depicts a problematic scenario raising plausibility questions.”

Importantly, such a meeting would also not follow the pattern laid out for the Church in the wake of Joseph Smith’s death. The priesthood keys lay with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, and all doctrine, practices, and changes must flow through them. It does not come through secret factions and clandestine meetings. It does not come from breakaway sects and those who reject the words of the living prophets. It only comes from those called by God, holding His authority and priesthood keys.

How were divorces formalized among Mormons on the frontier in the 19th century?

Some members of the Church remarried without obtaining a formal legal divorce

It is true that some nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints remarried without first obtaining a formal civil divorce. Modern readers sometimes assume that such cases must therefore constitute adultery. That assumption, however, reflects contemporary legal expectations—not the legal and social realities of antebellum America.

On the American frontier, particularly among the poor and geographically mobile, remarriage without a formal divorce was not uncommon. Courts were often distant, expensive, or practically inaccessible. Legal divorce procedures varied widely from state to state, and jurisdictional confusion was frequent.

This is where the danger of presentism arises. As noted by Lynn Hunt, former president of the American Historical Association:

“Presentism,” observed American Historical Association president Lynn Hunt, “at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior. . . . Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards.”

Evaluating nineteenth-century marital practices by twenty-first-century procedural expectations risks precisely this distortion.

To remarry without a formal divorce was not unusual in antebellum America

Critics sometimes highlight cases such as Louisa Rising, who married Edwin Woolley without first divorcing her legal husband, or Eleanor McLean, who married Parley P. Pratt before securing a formal divorce. These examples are presented as though they demonstrate uniquely shocking behavior among the Saints.

Yet legal historians paint a broader picture. One scholar has observed:

“From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.”

Another historian, Hendrik Hartog, writes in Man & Wife in America: A History:

“Bigamy or, rather, serial monogamy (without divorce or death) was a common social experience in early America. Much of the time, serial monogamists were poor and transient people, for whom the property rights that came with a recognized marriage would not have been much of a concern, people whose lives only rarely intersected with the law of marriage.”

These observations do not excuse wrongdoing; rather, they illustrate that marital formalities were far less standardized and enforceable than modern readers might assume. Remarriage without formal divorce paperwork was part of a broader American pattern, not a uniquely Mormon innovation.

The legal machinery of divorce was often weak or inaccessible

The Latter-day Saints were frequently impoverished and lived in frontier environments where state institutions were fragile or newly organized. Women who joined the Church and migrated west—often leaving non-member husbands behind—were especially unlikely to have the means or geographic access necessary to secure a civil divorce.

Moreover, marriage during this period was shaped heavily by communal recognition. As historian Nancy F. Cott explains in Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation:

“When couples married informally, or reversed the order of divorce and remarriage, they were not simply acting privately, taking the law into their own hands. . . . A couple about to join or leave an intimate relationship looked for communal sanction. The surrounding local community provided the public oversight necessary. Without resort to the state apparatus, local informal policing by the community affirmed that marriage was a well-defined public institution as well as a contract made by consent. Carrying out the standard obligations of the marriage bargain—cohabitation, husband's support, wife's service—seems to have been much more central to the approbation of local communities at this time than how or when the marriage took place, and whether one of the partners had been married elsewhere before.”

It is also worth remembering that because Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Latter-day Saint leaders exercised exclusive jurisdiction over celestial or plural marriages, marriages conducted under their supervision had as much (or more) formal oversight as many traditional marriages in America during the first half of the nineteenth century.

Without this broader historical context, modern readers may be led to assume that nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint marital practices were unusually reckless or “loose.” The historical record, however, shows that their experience reflected common legal and social realities of the American frontier.

Was it normal not to obtain a formal civil divorce in 19th century America?

To remarry without a formal divorce was not an unusual thing in pre-Civil War America

Some critics of Mormonism emphasize that certain Latter-day Saints did not secure formal civil divorces before remarrying—whether monogamously or pluralistically. The implication is that this reflects a cavalier or lawless attitude. Such claims, however, often overlook the broader legal and social realities of nineteenth-century America. The Saints were frequently poor and spent much of their history on the frontier, where the machinery of civil government was limited, inconsistent, or difficult to access. Women who joined the Church and migrated west without their husbands were especially unlikely to pursue costly and complicated civil proceedings—particularly when property rights were minimal and courts distant. Without this context, modern readers may be led to assume misconduct where the historical record shows commonplace legal informality. It also bears noting that because leaders such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young exercised exclusive jurisdiction over celestial or plural marriages, such unions operated under a form of recognized ecclesiastical oversight. In many frontier settings, that supervision was at least as structured as civil marriage administration elsewhere in America during the same period. Legal historians have made clear that informal remarriage was not uniquely Mormon. One non–Latter-day Saint scholar observed:

“From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.”

Similarly, historian Hendrik Hartog wrote in Man & Wife in America: A History:

“Bigamy or, rather, serial monogamy (without divorce or death) was a common social experience in early America. Much of the time, serial monogamists were poor and transient people, for whom the property rights that came with a recognized marriage would not have been much of a concern, people whose lives only rarely intersected with the law of marriage.”

In short, remarriage without formal divorce documentation—particularly among poor and mobile populations—was part of a broader American pattern. Nor, in many cases, were estranged husbands geographically available to participate in legal proceedings even if the wife had wished to initiate them.

Marriage in 19th century America was not a "free-for-all"

None of this means that marriage in nineteenth-century America was chaotic or unregulated. As historian Nancy F. Cott explains in Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation:

“When couples married informally, or reversed the order of divorce and remarriage, they were not simply acting privately, taking the law into their own hands. . . . A couple about to join or leave an intimate relationship looked for communal sanction. The surrounding local community provided the public oversight necessary. Without resort to the state apparatus, local informal policing by the community affirmed that marriage was a well-defined public institution as well as a contract made by consent. Carrying out the standard obligations of the marriage bargain—cohabitation, husband’s support, wife’s service—seems to have been much more central to the approbation of local communities at this time than how or when the marriage took place, and whether one of the partners had been married elsewhere before.”

Community recognition and performance of marital obligations often mattered more than strict compliance with formal state procedures. When nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint practices are evaluated within that broader American context, they appear far less anomalous than critics sometimes suggest.

What was the prevalence of polygamy in Utah and how many wives did most polygamist males have?

About 15–20% of families were polygamous, and most had only two wives

G. D. Smith’s desire to correct underestimates in some Latter-day Saint publications should not become license to exaggerate the norm—whether in reference to groups or individuals (such as Johnson)—in the opposite direction.

Most polygamists in Utah had only two wives. About 15–20% of families were polygamous, though the impact on the Latter-day Saint experience was profound:

“Excluding inactive men, ‘over a third of all husbands’ time, nearly three-quarters of all women-years, and well over half of all child-years were spent in polygamy before 1880.’”

G. D. Smith provides considerable statistical information, but he exaggerates even there. Of Benjamin F. Johnson—described as “representative of the mainstream in LDS practice”—Smith writes that he “eventually married seven wives—a few short of the model of ten talents” (p. 166). But was seven wives truly “mainstream” in Latter-day Saint polygamy?

Both Stanley S. Ivins and Kathryn M. Daynes produced careful estimates of plural wife distribution among Utah polygamists. Their findings are summarized below:

{

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top