Reader’s note: This is an expanded revision of an earlier response to Glenn E. Chatfield’s “God’s View of Polygamy.” It distinguishes biblical teaching, Latter-day Saint interpretation, and historical practice. Biblical quotations below use the King James Version; links provide the surrounding passages.
A Biblical Ideal Does Not Settle Every Historical Question
Adam had one wife. Does that establish that God never authorized a plural marriage anywhere in scripture? The question deserves more than a quick appeal to familiar verses. Genesis 2:21–24 presents the foundational union of husband and wife, and Jesus returns to that creation account when teaching about marriage. Yet the same biblical collection contains laws addressing households with more than one wife and a prophetic rebuke in which God describes giving David his master’s wives. An interpretation must account for this evidence together rather than treating one part as though the others do not exist.
For Latter-day Saints, the issue is not whether monogamy matters. It does. The question is whether the ordinary standard excludes every possible exception authorized by God, and whether a critic has accurately described the doctrine being challenged. A sound response should defend its convictions while admitting the limits of its evidence. It should also take seriously the women, children, and families whose lives are implicated in this difficult subject.
Understanding the Argument Before Answering It
The Strongest Version of Chatfield’s Position
Chatfield’s case appeals to the creation pattern, negative features of biblical plural households, marriage language in wisdom literature, Jesus’ teaching, and apostolic instructions. Its strongest formulation distinguishes what scripture records or permits from what God positively intends. That distinction is legitimate: a narrated practice does not become righteous simply because a biblical figure participated in it. His argument also challenges the continuing presence of Doctrine and Covenants 132 in Latter-day Saint scripture.
A creation-centered Christian argument for monogamy is substantial and deserves a substantive answer. The disputed step is the move from that norm to a comprehensive judgment about every historical instance. Alongside this interpretive dispute is a factual question about whether Latter-day Saint scripture requires every man to have multiple wives for exaltation. Those claims need to be examined separately; an inaccurate description of LDS doctrine cannot establish a biblical conclusion.
A Point-by-Point Scriptural Response
1. Does Doctrine and Covenants 132 Require Multiple Wives for Every Man?
Doctrine and Covenants 132 addresses both eternal marriage and plural marriage. Its opening verses contain demanding language about receiving and obeying the revealed covenant; its later instructions concern plural relationships. That context explains why readers raise the question. Nevertheless, verses 19–20 describe a man and a wife entering an authorized, sealed covenant and receiving exaltation. They do not stipulate a second wife as a universal prerequisite. The text requires interpretation, but a claim of mandatory plurality for every man needs evidence beyond the existence of its plural-marriage provisions.
The Church’s current “Plural Marriage” explanation explicitly rejects plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation. It also acknowledges that some nineteenth-century leaders taught that idea. A careful defense should retain both facts: present teaching does not require multiple wives, and earlier rhetoric was not uniform. Historical statements deserve examination in their own contexts; they should neither be erased nor substituted for the Church’s stated doctrine today.
2. Genesis 2 Establishes a Foundational Pattern
In Genesis 2:18–25, God addresses human solitude by bringing the woman to the man. The narrator then explains leaving parents, cleaving to a wife, and becoming one flesh. This is more than an incidental detail in Adam’s biography. It presents an account of marriage’s origin and significance, and its theological force should not be dismissed merely because it takes narrative form.
A Latter-day Saint reading can affirm that foundational pattern and understand marriage through covenantal commitment. However, calling Adam and Eve’s union a model of eternal marriage is an LDS theological interpretation, not an explicit reference in Genesis to a modern sealing ordinance. The narrower exegetical question remains whether this passage alone establishes that no divinely authorized exception could ever occur. Answering that requires considering the rest of the canon, including legal and prophetic passages that directly address plural households.
3. Lamech’s Household Requires Literary Context
Genesis 4:17–24 places Lamech in Cain’s lineage and identifies his two wives, Adah and Zillah. A factual correction matters here: Lamech is a descendant of Cain, not Cain’s immediate son. The passage culminates in his boast about killing and disproportionate vengeance, producing a disturbing portrait of escalating violence.
It would be too strong to insist that the surrounding narrative can convey no negative judgment about his household. Biblical authors can communicate morally through arrangement and contrast without attaching a formal prohibition to every act. Equally, the passage does not explicitly identify his taking two wives as the offense addressed by a divine command. Associating a practice with a wicked figure is insufficient by itself to establish its moral status in every setting. Lamech’s portrait can contribute to a cumulative argument; it cannot replace the examination of passages addressing other plural marriages.
4. Noah’s Family Illustrates Monogamy Without Explaining Every Exception
Genesis 7:7–13 identifies Noah, his wife, their sons, and their sons’ wives as entering the ark. This household fits the monogamous pattern and shows that multiple wives were not necessary for the narrative’s account of humanity’s survival. However, a prediction about how God would have populated the ark if plural marriage were ever permissible adds a premise the text does not supply. The family’s composition supports the ordinary pattern; it does not explain all the conditions under which God might authorize an exception.
5. Deuteronomy 17 Restrains Royal Accumulation
Deuteronomy 17:14–20 places Israel’s future king under covenantal restraints. He must not multiply horses, wives, or wealth, and he must remain subject to the law rather than elevate himself above his people. The warning about wives includes the danger of his heart turning away. Solomon’s marriages and apostasy in 1 Kings 11:1–10 make that danger concrete.
This command cannot fairly be reduced to a harmless observation about foreign politics. It genuinely restrains a king’s acquisition of wives. Yet its wording does not expressly establish a numerical rule of exactly one wife for every Israelite. A reading that turns a royal prohibition of multiplication into a universal statute must explain how that conclusion relates to the Torah’s other marriage provisions. The passage is important evidence against royal excess and divided loyalty; its scope and wording still matter.
6. Biblical Regulation Is Neither Automatic Approval nor a Universal Ban
Exodus 21:7–11 concerns a vulnerable woman in the ancient institution of servitude and marriage. If another wife is taken, her food, clothing, and marital entitlement must not be diminished. The specific social setting matters: this is not a modern marriage handbook, and the protections it provides should not obscure the inequalities of the institution it regulates.
Likewise, Deuteronomy 21:15–17 addresses a man with two wives and forbids him to displace the firstborn son’s inheritance rights because he favors another wife. The legislation directly acknowledges the household and protects a child from the consequences of marital preference. An argument about the Torah’s treatment of plural marriage should include this evidence rather than relying solely on passages that depict one husband and one wife.
Nevertheless, regulation does not by itself prove that God regards a practice as ideal or commands people to undertake it. Laws can protect people within arrangements that fall short of a broader theological norm. The defensible conclusion is limited but significant: these laws recognize and govern plural households without stating a categorical prohibition of every such household. Whether that recognition represents accommodation, authorization, or some combination remains a further interpretive question.
7. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes Commend Marital Fidelity
Proverbs 5:15–23 directs desire toward the wife of one’s youth rather than illicit sexual relationships. Proverbs 18:22 celebrates finding a wife, while Ecclesiastes 9:7–10 encourages receiving ordinary joys, including companionship with a beloved wife, during a fleeting life. Together they reinforce a recognizable marital picture and the goodness of faithful affection.
The singular wording should neither be ignored nor treated as a complete legal argument. Wisdom sayings address a reader in ordinary, personal terms; they are not necessarily attempting to settle every question of marital structure. These texts support the monogamous pattern within the Bible’s broader witness. To establish that they exclude every authorized exception, however, an interpreter needs an argument extending beyond the observation that each uses the word “wife.” Their clearest practical demand is fidelity rather than the pursuit of forbidden intimacy.
8. Jesus’ Appeal to Creation Has Genuine Moral Force
In Matthew 19:3–9, the Pharisees ask Jesus about divorce. He answers by appealing to creation, the union of husband and wife, and God’s joining of the two. He then distinguishes Moses’ accommodation of human hardness from the beginning. This is a powerful argument that recorded or legally permitted conduct is not automatically the divine ideal.
It would therefore be inadequate to answer, “Jesus was discussing divorce,” and dismiss the passage’s implications for marriage more generally. His answer draws its authority from the creation pattern, not merely from the immediate dispute. Christians who see here a normative monogamous ethic have a serious textual basis for their conclusion. Latter-day Saints can affirm the ordinary standard while disagreeing about whether that standard forecloses every historical exception.
The question still requires precision. Jesus does not expressly discuss each patriarchal household or declare in this passage that God never authorized any plural union. An argument about those historical cases must explain the relationship between creation, accommodation, and the other scriptural evidence. Matthew 19 strengthens the case for monogamy as the norm. It does not eliminate the need to interpret the legal and prophetic passages already considered.
9. Paul Describes Reciprocal Marriage, Not Male Entitlement
First Corinthians 7:1–5 discusses marriage, sexual conduct, and mutual obligations. Paul tells each man to have his own wife and each woman her own husband, then describes responsibilities in both directions. The reciprocity matters. An interpretation focused only on how many wives a man might acquire would miss Paul’s concern for the marital claims of both spouses.
This teaching contributes substantial evidence for monogamy as the ordinary Christian arrangement. It should not be weakened into a merely stylistic use of singular nouns. At the same time, it is not an explicit historical judgment on every Old Testament marriage. A responsible LDS response should acknowledge the force of Paul’s marital ethic while identifying the separate theological claim it makes about exceptional divine authorization. Nothing here gives individuals permission to pursue additional spouses on their own initiative.
10. Leadership Qualifications Cannot Be Turned into Permission for Everyone Else
First Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:5–9 require marital integrity of overseers, deacons, and elders. The expression translated “husband of one wife” has generated questions about polygyny, remarriage, and sexual faithfulness. Whatever interpretive questions remain, the passages set a demanding example of fidelity for those entrusted with leadership.
Their immediate focus on leaders does not establish that other Christians may practice polygamy. That would be an invalid reverse inference, much like concluding that only leaders must avoid drunkenness or violence because those qualities appear in leadership lists. Conversely, these verses do not explicitly pronounce judgment on every marriage in an earlier biblical dispensation. Their contribution is best understood within the New Testament’s broader moral vision, not converted into either a universal historical verdict or a loophole for ordinary believers.
11. Nathan’s Rebuke Includes Evidence That Must Be Addressed
Second Samuel 12:7–9 is particularly relevant. In Nathan’s rebuke, God recounts the gifts bestowed on David, including his master’s house and wives. The accusation then turns to David’s killing of Uriah and taking Uriah’s wife. The contrast distinguishes what God describes as giving from David’s wrongful appropriation.
This is stronger evidence than a narrative that merely notes a man had multiple wives. Still, a different interpretation is possible: the language may concern the transfer of the royal household and its prerogatives rather than a directive that David marry every woman in it. The passage also does not identify individual marriages. An interpreter should acknowledge these limits while explaining the explicit reference to wives within the account of divine benefaction.
For LDS interpretation, the passage is compatible with distinguishing authorized relationships from unlawful acquisition. It does not independently prove Joseph Smith’s prophetic authority or validate every later historical union. It does, however, prevent a comprehensive argument from bypassing the strongest biblical evidence on the other side.
12. Levirate Marriage Is Relevant but Does Not Prove Everything
Deuteronomy 25:5–10 describes a brother’s obligation toward the widow of a man who died without a child. Its purpose includes preserving the deceased brother’s name, and it also provides a public procedure when the surviving brother refuses. The law does not expressly require him to be unmarried. That omission raises a real question about how the obligation operated within a society that recognized plural households; it is not an explicit command addressed to an already-married man to take a second wife.
The distinction becomes especially important in Luke 20:27–38. The Sadducees describe a woman whose husbands die in succession, then challenge the resurrection by asking whose wife she will be. These are successive marriages, not simultaneous polygamy. Jesus’ response concerns resurrection and marriage in the age to come. It cannot legitimately be presented as an endorsement of concurrent plural marriage, and its implications for LDS teachings about eternal marriage require a separate argument.
The Latter-day Saint Framework and Its Responsibilities
Monogamy, Commandment, and the Warning in Jacob
Jacob 2:23–35 rebukes men who invoke David and Solomon to excuse their conduct, commands one wife and no concubines, and condemns the suffering inflicted on wives and children. The Church reads verse 30 as allowing an exception when God commands it to raise up a covenant people. Within this reading, historical examples never constitute personal permission.
The tension with Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–39 should be acknowledged: Jacob condemns David’s and Solomon’s many wives, while section 132 distinguishes relationships received from God from those not received from Him. The usual LDS reconciliation appeals to authorization and abuse, but it is a theological harmonization requiring argument. Quoting the proposed exception alone does not answer every question about the relationship between the texts.
Historical Practice Does Not Remove Ethical Questions
The Church’s historical essay on plural marriage describes a nineteenth-century practice undertaken by some members, rather than a universal arrangement. It also describes the gradual ending of new plural marriages, including the 1890 Manifesto and the 1904 Second Manifesto. Current Church teaching does not authorize members to enter plural marriages. Distinguishing present practice from historical claims is necessary for an accurate discussion.
That distinction does not settle every question about secrecy, religious authority, unequal power, or meaningful consent in particular historical relationships. Nor should the suffering of women be brushed aside as an unfortunate detail in an otherwise successful apologetic. Scripture’s concern for vulnerable family members must shape the defense itself. A claim of divine command is a claim that needs justification; it does not exempt conduct from historical examination.
Household Conflict Is Evidence to Interpret, Not Evidence to Dismiss
The conflicts involving Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel, and other biblical families deserve serious attention. Genesis 16 and Genesis 29:16–35 depict painful inequalities and rivalries. Such accounts can contribute to a literary and theological critique of polygyny. It is not enough to wave them away by observing that monogamous households also experience conflict.
Nevertheless, the existence of suffering does not by itself establish a universal conclusion about every possible authorized arrangement. The argument needs to explain how the narrative interprets the suffering and what broader judgment follows. Both sides should resist selective use of evidence: a defender should not romanticize plural households, and a critic should not assume that every narrative difficulty automatically resolves every question of divine authorization.
What the Evidence Establishes—and What Still Requires Argument
The biblical foundation for monogamy is substantial. Genesis supplies the creation pattern, Jesus gives that pattern moral authority, and the New Testament describes reciprocal marital fidelity. Latter-day Saints can affirm this ordinary standard without surrendering their separate belief that God authorized exceptional arrangements at particular times. The debate concerns how that claimed exception relates to the biblical record and whether the relevant revelation should be accepted.
A sound response avoids easy accusations of logical fallacy. An unsupported doctrinal assertion is not automatically a circular argument, and two distinct reasons for writing an article do not have to follow logically from one another. The problems that need examination are more specific: conclusions drawn from silence, universal claims inferred from singular grammar, association with a wicked figure, and the omission of directly relevant evidence. Those weaknesses should be demonstrated rather than merely labeled.
Likewise, an LDS defense should not confuse legal recognition with ideal approval, successive remarriage with simultaneous polygamy, or a biblical precedent with proof of a nineteenth-century revelation. Recognizing those distinctions makes the defense more credible. It focuses the disagreement where it belongs: the interpretation of the full scriptural witness, the authority of additional revelation, and the moral responsibilities of covenantal life.
Faith & Reason’s position is therefore measured but clear. Monogamy is the standing standard. Biblical laws and Nathan’s prophetic rebuke complicate an unqualified claim that every plural relationship was necessarily an unauthorized sin. The LDS doctrine of historical exceptions depends on accepting a claimed divine command; it cannot be established simply by pointing to patriarchs with multiple wives. Readers should compare the linked passages in context, examine the Church’s own explanations, and judge the argument by the evidence it actually supplies.
Works Cited / Bibliography
Entries below are alphabetized in Chicago bibliography style. Biblical texts are cited by book, chapter, and verse in the article; the bibliography identifies the edition. This list includes the sources used here rather than retaining unverified commentary attributions from the earlier draft.
The Bible. King James Version. Online edition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Accessed September 30, 2026. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bible?lang=eng.
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Online edition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Jacob 2.” Accessed September 30, 2026. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2?lang=eng.
Chatfield, Glenn E. “God’s View of Polygamy.” The Anti-Mormon Blog. Undated repost at the supplied URL. https://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com/2014/10/gods-view-of-polygamy.html.
Chatfield, Glenn E. “God’s View of Polygamy.” The Watchman’s Bagpipes. July 7, 2009. Updated September 29, 2016. Retrieved through the 2009 archive, September 30, 2026. https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2009/?m=0.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The. “Plural Marriage.” Topics and Questions. 2025. Accessed September 30, 2026. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/plural-marriage?lang=eng.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The. “Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Gospel Topics Essays. 2016. Accessed September 30, 2026. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng.
Doctrine and Covenants. Online edition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Section 132.” Accessed September 30, 2026. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng.
Source verification note: The linked Anti-Mormon Blog page could not be independently retrieved during this revision. Its argument was checked against the supplied draft and the matching text in Chatfield’s 2009 archive. The original publication date and 2016 update above refer to that archived version; a precise publication date for the linked repost is not asserted.
Independent publication notice: Faith & Reason: LDS Covenantal Apologetics is an independent platform and is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Interpretations are those of the author. Readers should consult official Church sources for authoritative statements of Church teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment