Polygamy: A Biblical Principle, a Divine Commandment—But Not a Current Requirement

A defense of plural marriage as a scripturally grounded, covenantally authorized principle of the restored gospel—and a direct answer to its hardest critics.

Polygamy—also known as plural marriage—remains one of the most controversial aspects of Latter-day Saint history. For many, its presence in early Church history evokes suspicion or discomfort—not necessarily because of scriptural doubts, but because of the modern Western culture in which we are raised. Contemporary values around marriage, gender, and autonomy have made the very concept deeply uncomfortable. But those who dig deeply into scripture, covenant theology, and world history recognize that plural marriage is both historically and theologically consistent—an eternal principle that God has revealed at specific times for specific covenant purposes. Though not practiced today, plural marriage remains a true part of the restored gospel—governed entirely by revelation and priesthood authority, never by private whim.

1. Plural Marriage: Commanded, Not Merely Permitted

Some claim that the Bible merely “allows” polygamy as an unfortunate cultural relic, never as a divine command. This is demonstrably false. The Law of Moses required polygamy in certain cases—Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5–10) commanded a man to marry his brother’s widow, whether or not he was already married. Refusal was shamed, showing this was not optional. Later Jewish tradition limited the practice for pragmatic reasons—not because God had changed the law.

2 Samuel 12:7–8 records God Himself giving David multiple wives and declaring He would have given even more. The sin for which David was rebuked was adultery and murder—not polygamy. If God truly abhorred the practice, why would He bestow it as a divine blessing?

Other Torah regulations (Exodus 21:10; Leviticus 18:18) assume plural marriage and regulate it, not abolish it. The point is clear: polygamy, when commanded or regulated by God, is not sinful.

2. Monogamy: A Cultural Norm—Not a Universal Divine Law

Many Christians argue that monogamy is the only true biblical model, citing Genesis 2:24 and Jesus’s affirmation in Matthew 19. But these texts speak to the origin and sanctity of marriage, not to a universal limit on spouses. The phrase “one flesh” describes intimacy, not arithmetic; by the same logic, remarriage after widowhood would be banned—yet the New Testament permits it (Romans 7:2–3).

Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 19 addresses divorce, not polygamy. Nowhere does Christ explicitly ban plural marriage, even as He interacts positively with the descendants of the patriarchs—most of whom were polygamists.

The historical and anthropological record is clear: over 80% of pre-industrial societies permitted polygamy, including God’s covenant people. Monogamy became the legal norm in the West only due to Greco-Roman and later Christian tradition—not because of a biblical prohibition.

3. God Sanctioned and Structured Polygamy Through His Prophets

Far from merely tolerating polygamy, God actively sanctioned and even commanded it among His prophets: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others. The very foundation of Israel—the twelve tribes—comes from a polygamous household (Jacob with four wives). Abraham’s relationship with Hagar and Sarah was not condemned; God blessed both lines. Moses had more than one wife, and God defended him against criticism (Numbers 12:1–10; D&C 132:38).

The problem in Solomon’s case was not polygamy per se, but idolatry and disobedience in marrying outside the covenant (1 Kings 11:1–10; Deut. 17:17). Nowhere in scripture does God rebuke Abraham, Jacob, or Moses for polygamy; instead, He blesses and covenants with their families.

The Doctrine and Covenants explicitly confirms that these prophets were justified when acting under God’s command—and condemned only when acting without it (D&C 132:38–39).

4. Plural Marriage as an Eternal Principle—Not Always Required

Critics allege that LDS plural marriage is an unbiblical “addition.” Yet continuing revelation is a core biblical principle (John 16:12–13; Amos 3:7; Acts 3:21). Jesus taught that not all truth had yet been revealed. What the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches is that additional scripture and continuing revelation are fully continuous with biblical precedent.

Matthew 22:30—that there is no “marrying or giving in marriage” in the resurrection—refers to new marriages after death, not to the cessation of eternal marriage covenants made in mortality (see also Matthew 16:19). The sealing power to bind families for eternity is foundational to the restored gospel.

The Book of Mormon affirms monogamy as the rule, except when God commands otherwise for covenant purposes (Jacob 2:27–30). Plural marriage is therefore not a universal commandment, but an eternal principle invoked only by explicit divine revelation.

5. Only God Can Authorize Plural Marriage—Authority and Obedience Matter

Scripture is clear: priesthood authority matters (Hebrews 5:4; Matthew 16:19; Acts 1:24–26). Christ gave keys to His apostles, who set binding rules for the Church—including on marriage. Polygamy, when authorized, was always regulated by priesthood authority. In the Restoration, Joseph Smith introduced the practice only by direct command, and it was carefully overseen by the prophet and apostles. When God withdrew the command in 1890 (Official Declaration 1), faithful Saints obeyed. Plural marriage has never been a free-for-all.

Obedience to current commandment is always the standard for salvation—not the number of spouses. Those who practice polygamy today are excommunicated, just as those who refused the principle when commanded in the 19th century were out of harmony with God’s will.

6. Polygamy Across Religious Traditions—A Broader Perspective

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and numerous cultures have recognized plural marriage as morally acceptable or even expected. Islamic law still permits it (Qur’an 4:3); Judaism practiced it for centuries; even Christian reformers like Martin Luther acknowledged its biblical legitimacy.

The universality of polygamy in world history—especially among the righteous—undercuts any claim that it is self-evidently evil or a mark of apostasy. Monogamy as the exclusive standard is a product of specific cultural evolution, not a universal divine law.

7. Confronting the Hardest Objection: Consent and Coercion

The doctrinal defense of plural marriage is one argument. The historical implementation is another—and the two must not be conflated. Critics press the harder charge: that Joseph Smith did not simply teach plural marriage, but used spiritual coercion to compel it. They argue he leveraged prophetic authority to pressure women, threatened eternal consequences for refusal, and in some instances targeted vulnerable women without meaningful choice. This is the strongest version of the objection, and it deserves a direct answer, not a sidestep.

The Standard Was Revealed

D&C 132:61 establishes the governing standard plainly: plural marriage requires the consent of the first wife and must be ordained by proper authority. The standard was not invented by apologists after the fact—it was revealed. It is in the canonized scripture. That means wherever the standard was violated, the violation was a departure from the revealed law, not an expression of it. The revelation itself anticipated and condemned unauthorized practice.

The Pre-Revelation Context

The earliest plural sealings—Fanny Alger (c. 1835), Louisa Beaman (1841)—predate the formal recording of D&C 132 (1843). This is not a cover. It is the actual history of how revealed doctrine develops. Abraham acted on covenant promises before Moses recorded the law; the apostles baptized before the full structure of Christian ordinances was codified. Doctrine worked out in practice does not invalidate the doctrine—it is how revelation has always operated (Amos 3:7; John 16:13).

Social Pressure Ran in Both Directions

The argument that Joseph used coercive spiritual language finds partial support in the historical record. This should not be whitewashed. Religious authority carries weight in any devout community, and that weight can be abused. But the same historical record also shows that many women were pressured by family members to refuse—that social coercion flowed in both directions. The 19th-century religious context operated with high deference to prophetic calling, just as early Christian converts faced enormous social pressure from Jewish and Roman family structures. Identifying pressure is not the same as proving that the doctrine behind it was false.

Human Failure Does Not Invalidate Revealed Doctrine

This is the decisive point, and it is fully grounded in the New Testament. Peter—the senior apostle, holder of the keys—denied knowing Christ three times under pressure (Matthew 26:70–74). Paul and Barnabas, two of the most faithful early missionaries, separated in sharp dispute over John Mark (Acts 15:39). These were not peripheral figures—they were the men carrying the keys of the kingdom. Their human failures did not falsify the Resurrection, the Atonement, or the doctrine of the Church they built.

D&C 132:61

“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.”

The standard is clear. Where it was violated, the violation was a sin against the revealed law. The revealed law itself was not the sin. The relevant question is not “was plural marriage always implemented with 21st-century standards of informed consent?” It was not. The relevant question is: was it doctrinally authorized? The answer from the scriptural and revelatory record is yes—authorized by the God who gave wives to David (2 Samuel 12:8), who blessed Jacob’s four-wife household, and who commanded the practice by revelation to a modern prophet.

The Verdict on the Consent Charge

Critics who press the consent objection are, in many cases, applying a 21st-century sexual-consent framework to a 19th-century religious community. That is not historically illegitimate—the past should be examined honestly, and where real harm was done, it should be named. But it is not a refutation of the doctrine. Abraham did not get a consent form notarized before taking Hagar. Isaac was brought a wife by proxy arrangement. Jacob married Leah under conditions he did not choose. None of these circumstances caused God to repudiate the covenant He made with those families.

What the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches is this: the authorization of plural marriage is a matter of divine command, not human process optimization. Where the process was flawed, that is a human failure subject to God’s judgment. Where the doctrine was revealed, it stands. The two questions are distinct, and conflating them is the error at the heart of this objection. The critics have found the human failure. They have not found a reason to disbelieve the revelation.

Conclusion: A Law Revealed by God, Governed by Him Alone

Cultural norms shift; doctrinal truth does not. God’s commandments sometimes run counter to worldly values and test the faith of His people. The Saints who lived plural marriage did so at great cost, and ceased by commandment at great cost as well. Both were acts of sanctifying obedience—Abrahamic tests for their generation.

Plural marriage is not a stain to hide or a footnote to regret. It is a scripturally grounded, covenantally authorized principle that God has employed at pivotal moments in salvation history—neither superior to monogamy nor required for exaltation, unless and until God commands it.

What the Gospel of Jesus Christ affirms:

  • Plural marriage was divinely practiced by ancient and modern prophets, never condemned by God when commanded.
  • It is a revealed law, not a man-made invention or cultural accident.
  • It is not currently commanded; monogamy is obedience for our time.
  • It remains an eternal principle—practiced only under priesthood authority and God’s express will.
  • Human failures in its implementation are real and answerable to God—but they do not touch the doctrinal authorization one degree.

In a world swayed by shifting trends, we are governed by revelation. We neither flinch from this doctrine nor attempt to impose it. The hardest questions about implementation do not dissolve the revelation. They refine our understanding of how God works through imperfect servants—which is, after all, the whole story of scripture.

Scripture Index for Further Study

Old Testament

New Testament

Restoration Scripture

  • Jacob 2:27–30 — Monogamy the rule; plural marriage by commandment only
  • D&C 132:38–39, 61 — Prophets justified when commanded; consent standard revealed
  • Official Declaration 1 — Obedient cessation of the practice
  • Articles of Faith 1:12 — Obedience to law as a principle