At the top of the list of concepts found in D&C 132 that challenge my female self-esteem are the instructions involving the first wife having a say in becoming part of a polygamous relationship. In verse 61 it says,

“if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent . . . then he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him . . . ”

Considering the previously mentioned pressures on the early Saints to live this principle, was the first wife freely giving consent or rather pressed into doing so? Could one who is subordinate, without legally independent status, give true consent? In reality, these questions are insignificant. Although it may have been polite to ask the first wife’s permission, her consent is of no consequence because later in the same section it states if she does not accept this law and give her consent, she will be destroyed and her husband will be able to take another wife anyway.  In verses 64 and 65 it says:

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.”

Thankfully, we are not told by today’s prophets to live this principle. However, based on our teachings and with an eternal point of view, we are living it. It is practiced in our day by the men who remarry and are sealed for eternity to additional wives after the death or divorce of their first wife (something a living wife cannot do upon the death or divorce of her husband). In the case of death, there is no need to obtain the consent of the first wife before the husband is sealed to additional wives.

The first wife’s agency is irrelevant.

Since seeking the first wife’s consent could get messy, perhaps it is better that she not be asked. After all, can you imagine a husband asking his dying wife if she will allow him to be sealed eternally to another wife after she passes? Fortunately, something that hurtful is not likely to happen.

What is more likely is for couples who know of this teaching to have a conversation prior to or early in their marriage, and for the wife to ask that her husband never be sealed to a second wife. This conversation can go two ways: the husband might assure his wife he will follow her wishes and never take a second wife, or perhaps (feeling he must be honest) he will say he can’t be certain, because it might be required of him to take additional wives. My husband chose the former option, which in my opinion, is the wiser choice because it keeps the wife happy. He knows that if I die first, he would be free to remarry, but that I do not want him to be sealed to another woman. He has agreed to this despite D&C 132, which states my permission is not required. Even though I might be viewed as selfish because of my demand, I prefer my children not be burdened by thoughts of eternal plural wives for their father.

Before a divorced man is sealed to another wife, he is usually required to obtain the consent of the first wife (and also the permission of the First Presidency). However, my daughter’s consent was not requested before her ex-husband was sealed to a second wife. She had been sealed in the temple, and then abandoned by her husband a year later, with divorce papers arriving the next day. Even though he left her, she was left to cancel the sealing—something she needed for her peace of mind and would also need if she ever wanted to be sealed in the temple again.

Despite the strong objections of her stake president, she insisted on the cancellation of the sealing. This long, arduous procedure required her ex-husband’s permission, which did not come quickly. During the process she learned that shortly after their divorce was final, he had been sealed in the temple to another wife. In effect, my daughter had not only remained sealed to her ex-husband for some time after their divorce, but without her knowledge or consent, she had also been sealed to his new wife.

All of this causes me to wonder why God’s plan would place this added stress on a couple: create an unequal voice in their relationship, teach them that loyalty in their marriage will be one-sided, and cause them to have conversations about additional wives in the hereafter. I wonder why His plan would place this added stress on the woman in particular: that is, demonstrate that her freedom to choose in this matter is meaningless, imply she is selfish for desiring that a spouse be loyal to only her, and allow her to imagine that the highest heavenly home will be, for her, less heavenly.

Elder Tad Callister said,

“If one does not correctly understand his divine identity, then he will never correctly understand his divine destiny. They are, in truth, inseparable partners.” 

This muddled principle of plural marriage, that cannot be adequately explained, touches on both a woman’s identity and her destiny, resulting in a less than ideal understanding of either.

This is part of an essay that first appeared on SquareTwo