General LDS Information
Basic LDS Beliefs
LDS Videos
Critics' Questions
Submitted Questions
Scriptures/LDS Literature
LDS Temples
Music and Arts
LDS Online Stores
Priesthood, Humor, Miscel.
Site Map

Suggest a Site
Now accepting banner ads!

Bookmark and Share

IAN - i'm having a hard time with this,as a father i don't think i could go with that if my daugther's husband brought another wife in.......i just don't see how you can honor your wife by bringing in another wife.

JOEL -I'm not really sure what you are asking. I wouldn't like it either. At the moment there would be no honor involved because we are not commanded to live that doctrine right now and anyone involved in it would be excommunicated.
I believe at the time the saints were living it, the question was not so much are you honoring your wife; the question was are you and your first wife honoring God by living the principle as commanded? Also at that time the first wife was honored in a way, by seeking her permission before taking another wife.

"And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified;" (D&C 132: 61)

The only way you would not be honoring your wife is if you did it without her consent. Also, not everyone was allowed to do it. Permission to enter the system was granted only by the President of the Church, and after careful examination of the candidate.

Elder John A. Widstoe refuted a number of possible reasons for the existance of the principle and finally came to this conclusion:

"The simple truth and the only acceptable explanation, is that the principle of plural marriage came as a revelation from the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith for the Church. It was one of many principles so communicated to the Prophet. It was not man-made. It was early submitted to several of his associates, and later, when safety permitted, to the Church as a whole." (Evidences and Reconsiliations, 1943)

Return to top
Return to Questions