Not an Innocent Bystander
When the state headlines describe polygamy laws, I realize (somewhat like Dorothy in Oz) I’m not in California anymore. The Utah State legislature decriminalized polygamy. Rather than a felony, it is now an infraction—a level below a misdemeanor.
In V.H. Cassler’s article about this new law, Opening The Pandora’s Box of Polygamy in Utah, 2020, she explains that Church authorities stood mute over this issue because the legislation was going to overwhelmingly pass and they were powerless to stop it. While that may be true, the Church is not an innocent bystander. The Church is the majority Mormon sect—the main polygamous church, the one that no longer wants to be associated with polygamy or called LDS or Mormon (probably for fear of being confused with polygamists)—that has perpetuated the doctrine behind this legislation.
Cassler believes that Church leaders feel sorrow over this legal cover for gross sin. Perhaps. But I feel sorrow that this gross sin is part of the historical and eternal doctrine of my Church.
Emily Dickenson once said, "saying nothing sometimes says the most." By saying nothing for many years, at least nothing clear-cut, the Church has left its members in the wilderness to believe that God is behind plurality of wives.
Although we are taught that polygamy is a serious spiritual crime and are told to be monogamous (at least for now), we share with fundamentalist sects the history, doctrine, and eternal perspective of polygamy. No matter how clearly the data (http://www.womanstats.org) shows societal harm is caused by polygamy, the Church continues to teach, quietly, that our polygamy history was inspired.
The Church’s message is that fundamentalists are very different from us; however, fundamentalists are humans on earth trying to live what they believe is an eternal principle from God. That sounds strangely like our Church history. Like us, fundamentalists believe this principle will be eternal. After all, we share D&C 132, which spells out this historical and eternal principle. That section is still part of our scriptures and men can be sealed to more than one woman in our temples.
Cassler’s article contrasts the legislatures’ wrong choice on passing this law with the admonition of Elder Oaks to stand up for the rightchoice on abortion. Can the right choice on abortion apply to whatever the right choice is on polygamy?
After all, even Elder Oaks provided an ambiguous answer on polygamy in the October 2019 general conference. The introduction to his speech reinforced the mixed feelings of members over which choice is right on the history and eternal nature of plural wives. And since Elder Oaks is sealed for eternity to two wives, his belief on this matter is clear.
What’s a Church member to think? Or for that matter a state legislator?
Cassler points out that the Utah legislature doesn’t need to defend the kingdom of God by planning for polygamy. I agree, but when we elect representatives, we also don’t expect them to check their moral compass at the door. The majority of legislators, who likely are representative of the majority of Church members, believe they are following their moral compass by following the Church’s lead as they believe in and make way for inspired eternal polygamy. The law, morality and the Church becomes very muddled.
As a summary and a disclosure: I believe the data showing that harm is caused by living polygamy. And while Cassler’s article provides compelling reasons why a lighter penalty for practicing polygamy is opening a Pandora’s box of problems in Utah, time will tell if her assumptions, sadly, are correct. We will learn by experience if these lighter-penalty laws will increase or decrease the practice, or if it will result in improved or worse lives for those living it.
In essence, I am on the fence with this new law, but I am not on the fence with the doctrine behind the law. I have been a member of the Church for many years and have lived under the confusion of trying to grasp my Church’s plural marriage doctrine. Through that lens, this topic has meaning for me and I see one thing clearly: the main polygamous church…my Church…is the reason this legislation passed.
As long as the Church continues to sanction D&C 132 and men are sealed to more than one woman in our temples, the legislature can feel justified in passing laws that prepare the way for the restoration of polygamy in the last days, providing a greater sense of entitlement among Church men raised in the old Mormon mindset, and perhaps opening the Pandora’s box of polygamy in Utah.