What’s the deal with Polygamy

Why is Polygamy such a hot issue?

With all the news coming out recently about the church releasing the scanned documents of the 1887 John Taylor ‘revelation’ I thought I would mention some of my thoughts on the topic. I’ve never understood why the topic of polygamy and why it Illicit such strong reactions. I do understand the response to marrying younger or under age girls. As well as the assumption of some of the marriages being brought on under duress, or the pressure to marry someone because of their authority and the consequences that may happen if the invitation was denied. To me those are also separate issues that are closely tied and related to the topic of polygamy, but not an issue with the practice of polygamy by itself.

Ideally, I believe, a society would function best if there were an even number of men and women and everyone would be able to pair off and have kids and raise a family. That’s the ideal scenario. Life is more chaotic and will not work out like that for everyone. I do think that it would produce the most order and stability to a society however and should be something we strive for. Just because I think that others will not and are entirely free to follow their own conscience. With that being said I don’t understand how a bible believing society would be so opposed to Polygamy. It seems to me that much of the old testament is condoning and endorsing polygamy everywhere. How people can read the bible and believe the bible to be inerrant and the very real word of God and think God hates Polygamy. Of all the things to complain about the Mormons I don’t know why this is the biggest issue for many people.

For me I don’t have a problem with the general practice or idea of polygamy. I don’t want any part of it, but for consenting adults who cares. If one of the parties is not a willing participant then that’s where I would have a problem. That’s nothing special with polygamy however, I don’t think anyone should ever be compelled to be a party to some activity where they don’t consent. I also think there needs to be very informed consent to agree to participant in some activities like marriage. We could argue with the age of consent and how much information needs to be disseminated to an individual before they agree to such life long commitments. I would also argue that 8 is far to young to join any religion. Especially one as high demand and orthodox as the LDS church is. If we do have informed consent by all parties why do we care?

I view Polygamy much like the debates about gay marriage in a way. I remember back in early 00’s in Oregon there was debate over a bill that would defined marriage as between a man and a women. It may have been 2004, I remember voting for something like that. I don’t remember the specifics anymore. I do recall going back and forth on what I believed should be done. At the time I didn’t really have a problem with gay people getting married. Why would I care. Two people living together, what’s the difference really. I did believe, and still do, that the ideal scenario for most people is to find a partner and settle down and have kids. I get that it’s more complicated than that and just because that’s probably what’s best for most people that still leaves some people who won’t benefit from that lifestyle. The church was heavily in favor of putting into law the language of having marriage be between a man and woman. This pulled me probably more into that camp at the time.

Over the years however I changed my mind on things a little more. Ultimately I have come down more on a completely different side where I don’t know why the State should be in control of what marriage means. Get the government out of marriage altogether. My marriage license is the most meaningless piece of paper to me. I am not married to my wife because the government says i am, I am married to my wife because I love here and promised to be by her side forever. Marriage licenses were not a thing in the US until the mid to late 1800s. To some extent because of Polygamy. They were also used to monitor interracial marriages. The entire reason they started marriage licenses was to discriminate against practices the State didn’t agree with.

What’s the good

I think there can be good things that come from polygamy. I think there is a time and place where polygamy can be a very helpful thing for a society. Granted I think in most scenarios where it can be considered good it’s only because you are in a bad position and need a way to overcome shortcomings. For example If we look back in time to a civilization where you have a small number of leaders and the upper class of society. The society is often at war with other nations. This is a simplistic look, but I think illustrates the point. In a society like this you need young men to go to war to protect the wealthy and the women and children. In the eyes of that society the few rich, wealthy, and powerful are the most important to society. They are also only valuable if they have a group of people to view them as such. If you are the wealthy you need to keep the masses satisfied enough so they don’t revolt and kill you. You also need to keep the other waring nations at bay. The masses just need to feel safe and protected enough so not to revolt. If you revolt there will be chaos until order is restored, but in the meantime another nation will probably take advantage and overtake you and enslave your people. Bad things can happen. In order to keep a lot of this order you need an army. The army will be made up mostly of young men who are really only there to keep the peace. The nature of war though is death. There will be a lot of casualties in any conflict. If we assume 50% of children born will be boys and the other 50% girls. Once they grow up the army will fill out with the boys, and not the girls. Proportionally once you end up in child bearing ages you will most likely have a surplus of women over men. The ideal scenario can’t work out where they can all pair off together.

That’s where the idea of polygamy makes sense. You have a society where there are many more young women and not enough men for them to marry. At that point the wealthy have conveniently sent away many potential mates for the young women. At the point the best scenario is probably polygamy. The people need more children. Men can have as many children as there are women. The women can only have 1 child at a time. 9 month gestation period. The one powerful man can ensure the women are safe and secure and have a comfortable life for the most part. With Polygamy you can ensure a lot of children.

I don’t think most people would view this as a good society. It’s only good for the wealthy man. Everyone else is pretty much dealing with that reality. To some extent we do live in that world. The powerful men still have a lot of kids with multiple women. In that regard I would view polygamy as better than that. At least with polygamy there is a vow and commitment to the women. How many kids does Elon Musk have? a lot supposedly. I think he takes care of the kids financially. Better than most people, but there really isn’t any commitment there to the women.

The problem I see with the church an polygamy is lying about it. To a large extent It’s the reason Joseph was killed. The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. As a believing member for a long time this was the event that caused me the most confusion. I wholeheartedly believe in the first amendment and free speech. I would call myself a free speech absolutist, at least in regards to actual speech and the written word. The church supposedly believes in free speech. I’ve always been taught that this country and the founding documents were guided by God. At least the founding fathers were all guided by God when drafting the founding documents. There is nothing more important than free speech to a free society. How can the founder of the church be so outraged by a newspaper publication that he orders the destruction of the press. Even in the best case scenario where what the Nauvoo Expositor was a bold face lie and completely fabricated I don’t think Joseph was justified at all in the response. The correct response is to let the truth come out. Argue the facts and let God prove the truth out. That’s the best scenario, but that doesn’t look like it’s even true. What the expositor said was pretty much true. So Joseph had the press destroyed over stating the truth. Unfortunately the more I have looked at religious history, even outside of Mormonism, I see a long trail of deceit, dishonest, and lies. Probably with the most honest of intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The religious leaders of this world have all sold their souls.

Rethinking Polygamy

In light of the Church’s recent release of the 1887 John Taylor "revelation" documents, I feel compelled to articulate my views on polygamy and the broader discourse surrounding it. The topic consistently evokes strong emotional reactions, though I often find the intensity of those reactions somewhat puzzling. To be sure, concerns about underage marriage, and especially allegations of coercion or manipulation by figures in authority, are deeply troubling and deserve serious attention. These are moral failings that must be addressed and condemned—but they are not intrinsic to the concept of polygamy itself. Rather, they are abusive distortions that can appear in many social, religious, or marital systems when power is unchecked.

From a sociological standpoint, the conventional model of monogamous marriage, paired with a roughly equal sex ratio, seems to offer a framework that fosters stability, family cohesion, and long-term societal sustainability. This is especially true in cultures that emphasize child-rearing, inheritance, and continuity of social structures. Nevertheless, human societies are rarely so orderly. War, disease, cultural shifts, and individual preferences all introduce complexity that undermines the neat ideal of one man and one woman in every household. Recognizing this variability allows for more flexible and realistic social policy and personal ethics.

What I find particularly contradictory is the vehement opposition to polygamy in many Christian circles that otherwise claim to uphold the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God. The Hebrew Bible presents numerous instances of divinely appointed patriarchs maintaining multiple wives. Figures like Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon are central to the biblical narrative and are never condemned for their polygamous relationships—at least not directly. To believe in biblical inerrancy while denouncing polygamy wholesale requires an interpretive double standard that I find intellectually inconsistent. For those looking to critique Mormonism, the practice of polygamy may seem like low-hanging fruit, but it's worth noting that it aligns far more closely with biblical precedent than many modern Christian norms.

As for my own stance, I have no personal desire to engage in polygamy. My interest lies in defending the rights of others to make their own informed, consensual choices. In a pluralistic society, adults should be free to structure their relationships as they see fit, provided all participants give their fully informed and voluntary consent. This principle extends beyond marriage to all serious life decisions, including religious commitment. That’s why I question practices like baptizing children into a high-demand religion at the age of eight. While tradition may affirm such rites of passage, the ethical basis for meaningful consent is lacking at that age.

These reflections on polygamy also remind me of the political and cultural debates surrounding same-sex marriage. I recall vividly the early 2000s in Oregon—perhaps 2004—when the state debated a ballot measure that would define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. I remember being torn at the time. Though I had no personal objection to same-sex couples marrying, I still carried the belief that the traditional family model was the healthiest or most stable arrangement for society at large. That assumption was partly cultural, partly religious, and largely unexamined. In retrospect, I now see that my initial resistance had less to do with moral reasoning and more to do with conforming to the ideological environment I was immersed in.

Over the years, my views evolved significantly. Today, I believe the state has little legitimate interest in defining or regulating marriage. Marriage is, at its core, a covenantal relationship grounded in personal commitment, not a bureaucratic designation. My marriage to my wife is rooted in love, fidelity, and shared purpose—not in a government-issued license. It's important to remember that marriage licenses in the U.S. only became widespread in the late 19th century, largely as tools for social control. They were introduced not to affirm love, but to restrict unions that deviated from prevailing norms—whether interracial, polygamous, or otherwise. That origin should give us pause when we consider how much power the state should exercise over such intimate aspects of life.

Potential Merits of Polygamy

It’s worth exploring the historical and functional contexts in which polygamy may have served a constructive societal role. In premodern and wartime societies, male mortality rates were often high due to conflict, disease, and labor hazards. The result was an imbalance in the adult sex ratio, with more women than men surviving to reproductive age. In such scenarios, monogamy would have left many women without prospects for partnership or children. Polygamy, in contrast, allowed for the continued growth of the population and provided women with access to the social and economic stability that came from attachment to a household.

This arrangement was not without its inequalities. Polygamous systems often privileged wealthy or powerful men, creating a competitive hierarchy where only a few could afford or were permitted multiple wives. Nevertheless, within that framework, polygamy offered real benefits: protection, shared resources, and communal child-rearing. In some societies, it helped ensure that widows and unmarried women were not left without support. It also facilitated inter-familial alliances and strengthened tribal or clan structures.

We see modern analogs in today’s world. High-status men—business magnates, celebrities, athletes—often have multiple children with multiple partners. These arrangements typically lack the transparency or formal commitments of polygamous marriage. For example, Elon Musk has publicly acknowledged fathering numerous children with different women. While he appears to support them financially, the relationships themselves are largely informal and non-binding. This raises ethical concerns about long-term commitment and emotional support, particularly for the children involved. By contrast, a structured polygamous system—entered into openly and with mutual consent—could arguably offer a more stable alternative.

This isn’t to say that polygamy should be held up as an ideal or promoted indiscriminately. But neither should it be vilified out of hand, particularly when it may serve functional purposes under specific social conditions. Rather than focusing on the structure of the relationships, we should focus on the presence—or absence—of fairness, agency, and respect among participants.

The Ethical Breach: Dishonesty and Suppression

If there’s a true moral failing in the LDS Church’s historical engagement with polygamy, it lies not in the practice itself but in the sustained effort to obscure and deny it. A prime example is the 1844 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper that published criticisms of Joseph Smith and accusations of secret polygamous teachings and practices. As someone who deeply values freedom of speech, I find this event deeply disturbing. It’s especially jarring given that LDS teachings often affirm the divine inspiration of the U.S. Constitution, which enshrines that very right.

Even if the newspaper had exaggerated or erred—which, as historical evidence suggests, it largely did not—ordering its destruction was a blatant overreach. The suppression of dissent, particularly when truthful, reveals a deeper insecurity within leadership structures. Institutions that cannot withstand scrutiny or criticism rarely deserve the level of moral authority they claim. Smith’s decision, which contributed to the chain of events leading to his death, signals the dangers of conflating religious authority with political power and using both to silence opposition.

This pattern is hardly unique to Mormonism. Across religious traditions, we find examples of leaders hiding inconvenient truths in the name of protecting the faithful or preserving divine authority. Whether it’s financial impropriety, abuse scandals, or doctrinal shifts, the reflex to cover up instead of confront is pervasive. The rationale is almost always the same: to avoid scandal, to protect the community, to preserve the faith. But these justifications often have the opposite effect. They erode trust, alienate believers, and compromise the very values they aim to uphold.

At its core, polygamy—like any form of human relationship—is morally neutral. Its ethical standing depends entirely on how it is practiced. Are individuals free to choose? Are power imbalances acknowledged and mitigated? Are all participants treated with dignity and respect? These are the questions that matter. When practiced with honesty and integrity, polygamy can be a valid expression of human connection. When shrouded in secrecy or coercion, it becomes yet another tool of exploitation. Our goal, then, should not be to preserve or condemn any particular structure but to create a culture where transparency, autonomy, and mutual respect guide our choices.

In a society that claims to value freedom and truth, we owe it to ourselves—and to future generations—to let people chart their own course, provided they do so with full awareness and consent. The failure lies not in the form of a relationship, but in the fear and dishonesty that so often surround it. True morality, after all, begins with the courage to tell the truth.