Responding to Glen E. Chatfield’s “Speaking Against Polygamy Brings Damnation”

 

Engaging in a thoughtful and respectful discussion with critics of the Latter-day Saint faith is often challenging, particularly when the conversation lacks nuance or context. Glen E. Chatfield's recent blog post, "Speaking Against Polygamy Brings Damnation," is an example of this difficulty. While criticism is expected in matters of faith, the lack of historical understanding and the tone of his arguments make constructive dialogue nearly impossible.

Previously, I provided a commentary on Life After Ministry’s post about polygamy, offering a contextual analysis rather than a defense or refutation. My goal was to frame the practice of polygamy within the historical and cultural realities of Joseph Smith’s time—focusing on the persecution faced by early Church members and the evolving legal framework surrounding polygamy. This analysis sought balance and fairness, acknowledging the complexities of history rather than reducing them to simplistic judgments.

Unfortunately, many critics, including Mr. Chatfield, seem to approach these topics with rigid confirmation biases. Rather than fostering open discussions or exploring historical nuance, they rely on short, dismissive posts filled with inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks. Such tactics are not conducive to genuine conversation; they are, quite frankly, designed to silence opposing views rather than engage with them.

Attempts at Dialogue

A few years ago, I’ve extended invitations to Mr. Chatfield to engage in a respectful and thoughtful discussion. These offers have been declined or ignored. This refusal to engage in dialogue speaks to a broader issue among some critics of the Latter-day Saint faith: a reluctance to have their assumptions challenged. Instead of inviting scrutiny, they often position themselves as authoritarian voices, presenting their perspectives as the sole "truth" without opening the door to meaningful analysis or debate.

Mr. Chatfield’s approach—echoing unexamined claims and rejecting contextual discussion—raises questions about his commitment to honest discourse. His comment sections, for example, appear to be filled with one-sided conversations, often under pseudonyms, that lack context, substance, or relevance. Whether these “conversations” are genuine or orchestrated, they do little to foster understanding or credibility.

Addressing Common Misconceptions

A recurring critique is that any reference to historical context is an attempt to "soften evil" or defend indefensible actions. This accusation misunderstands the purpose of context. Historical context does not excuse or justify actions; it provides the framework to understand why certain decisions were made and how they were influenced by cultural, social, and legal factors of the time. Without this understanding, history becomes little more than a caricature—stripped of depth and complexity.

For example, the quotes often cited by critics, such as those from Heber C. Kimball or the Journal of Discourses, must be read within the framework of their time. It’s important to recognize the theological and societal pressures shaping these statements rather than cherry-picking quotes to support preconceived narratives. Dismissing context entirely is intellectually dishonest and undermines any claim to objective analysis.

Critics like Mr. Chatfield also frequently misrepresent the historical development of polygamy within the Church. Joseph Smith’s revelations on plural marriage, while controversial, were rooted in a theological framework that many early Saints believed to be divinely inspired. Similarly, the later renunciation of polygamy under Wilford Woodruff was not a convenient abandonment but a response to significant legal and political pressures. These events are complex and multifaceted, and reducing them to accusations of “serial adultery” ignores the broader historical and doctrinal landscape.

Faith, Nuance, and Dialogue

The claim that the Bible unequivocally supports a single form of marriage also overlooks the complexities of scriptural history. While monogamy is a clear ideal in many biblical narratives, instances of polygamy, such as those involving Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, complicate the conversation. These examples do not invalidate God’s commandments but illustrate the human struggle to align with divine principles. Critiquing polygamy in the Latter-day Saint context while ignoring these biblical precedents reveals a selective approach to scripture that lacks consistency.

Ultimately, productive discussions require an openness to learning, a willingness to engage in good faith, and a recognition of nuance. Critics like Mr. Chatfield, who dismiss context and rely on inflammatory rhetoric, miss an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the broader dialogue about faith, history, and theology. Instead of fostering understanding, they perpetuate division and misunderstanding.

As members of the Latter-day Saint community, we should strive to engage with critics respectfully, providing thoughtful and well-reasoned responses. At the same time, it’s essential to recognize when dialogue is unproductive and move forward in our efforts to build bridges with those willing to engage in sincere and honest conversations.