A Film Producer's Research On LDS Polygamy

Film producer Celene Anderson joins Greg to discuss her deep dive research into plural marriage required by a recent film she produced, The Angel. This is not a polygamy advocacy piece; it’s an honest, nuanced look at history, women’s voices, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, and why early Saints believed and lived this practice. We tackle common distortions, the difference between eternal and temporal principles, connections to women’s rights in early Utah, and how to talk about a topic that makes many believers uneasy—boldly, thoughtfully, and in defense of the faith.

 Raw Transcript

Selene Anderson is a film producer. She produced the recent short film The Angel
by filmmaker Barrett Bergen, who I had on recently. While Selene was producing
the movie, she started to research a lot more into polygamy. The It's a folk horror movie about 19th century
polygamy. It's a folk horror movie about a 19th century polygamous family. And
what she found surprised her. In fact, the research that she did, she shared with the Mormon polygamy conference
recently and with us here on the Quick Show. This is not advocacy for polygamy, but it definitely tells a story about
the heritage and for some of us ancestors in the church and the trials
and tribulations and tests that they had to go through. Is polygamy an eternal
principle? Is it just temporal at times? We go over some of these things. This episode is brought to you by Go and Do
Travel. I am the official spokesman for going to travel and the ultimate holy land trip. This is the trip to Israel.
We hit all of the major sites, but one site specific is that we will be at the
Garden Tomb on Easter day. Imagine that. The trip is March 29th through April
6th, 2026. And you can add a two-day extension where we go to Petra, Jordan.
you know, the carved in rocks in the in the cliffs famous in one of the Indiana Jones movies. I would love to spend that
time with you. Go to quick media.com, cwicdia.com up at the top trips and events and
scroll down to ultimate holy land in Israel. Here we go.
[Music]
So Selene, I understand in in producing the movie The Angel, which is set in a
polygamous environment in in the history of the church, that you came across the topic and you came up with some ways to
articulate why the church members did have polygamy, why it may have been
necessary even, and go through that experience with me a little bit. How did you start off when you first knew that
this movie, The Angel, was about polygamy to some degree and then where that took you?
Yeah, so I was first um brought on as a producer in 2021 uh for the feature
version and then we developed the short version, the angel, uh both dealing with uh the millu of polygamy of Latterday
Saint polygamy specifically. Um, and so going into that, I knew in the
development process, this is a topic I needed to be more educated on and more aware of, especially that time period,
how it was practiced, all everything that it looked like. And so I started diving into the information there. Um, a
really great resource was the the Better Days 2020 Foundation had just um
released their their information and and started back in 2020 to celebrate the
centennial of uh the 19th Amendment, women's right to vote federally. And I
discovered for the first time that women in Utah were the first in the United States to vote 50 years before that
amendment. Uh, and I was like, "Hold on. I was born and raised in Utah and no one
has ever informed me of this. I never learned that at church. I never learned that at um school. None of that." And so
that's when I started really diving in further both for the film and then my personal interest was peaked.
Were you surprised by that then? You act like you were surprised by it because of a
what a narrative of of Latterday Saint I'm going to say misogyny, but patriarchy.
Yes, definitely. And I think that it's been because it's a topic that we've been so reticent and for many reasons,
many good reasons I think reticent to discuss. Um what has incidentally
happened is we've allowed fundamentalists to to rule the conversation. And so we
look at fundamentalism and we just say, "Oh, that's what it was kind of like." And that's kind of like nerve-wracking
um in a lot of cases. uh and then looking into it and finding out, oh,
actually this looks very different and they don't have more of a right to this history than we do. And I I really
developed more of a a passion to reclaim that um and what actually went on and especially um the voices of the women
who were involved was in particularly inspiring. So Okay. Yeah, that was kind of the setting
there. Uh so where did your research take you? Yeah. So, my research took me um through
a multid-disciplinary area and it was honestly just something that was really
um it was really kind of beautiful for me. It allowed me to really engage with
the topic of gender and the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in like a really profound and nuanced and
interdisciplinary way. Uh that that really settled a lot of questions and
concerns I had had. uh which is not a typical experience. And then I was just
kind of keeping that to myself like, oh great, I love this. And then this year
um has really been shocking. I just kind of want to list out the things that have happened in regards to plural marriage
in public discourse just in 2025. Okay. It felt it was shocking and like
serendipitous that I felt like all this was happening and we had just released the short film and it felt like this was
suddenly just like a hot button topic on a level I have never noticed or seen before
where like this year we it's Doctrine of Covenants year section 132 is coming up to cover. So that'll be interesting. At
the beginning of the year we had that drama with the primary children story book with the plural marriage and and
cartoon there all that. Um, we had the Journal of Mormon Polygamy launched and
having their first conference. We had Michelle Stone 132 Problems due to whatever pressures removed from YouTube.
Um, we have a lot more in kind of apologetic space. The Beach Roberts Foundation put out an article on on DNC
132. Uh, we had the 1886 revelation added to the church history library. We
had just a few weeks ago that viral clip of President Oaks saying heavenly mother or mothers. Yes.
Um we just had the church release the gospel topics essay affirming Joseph Smith's polygamy. And so it's very an
intensive topic that is really uh relevant right now. And we also have these incidental
ancillary pieces of gender that happened mostly at the end of last year. we had um Ballerina Farm and like the tradife
debate and conversation on social media and then not to mention the launching of season one and now two of the secret
life of Mormon wives. And so this kind of reapproach of we don't know what to do with plural marriage and doubling
down on like the historicity of of plural marriage and also these ancillary gender things going on. I have found to
be a very interesting storm and it's kind of been surreal. Uh and I have a
real passion that I just kind of realized seeing all this we need to stop engaging on this topic timidly and can
speak loud and boldly about this in defense of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Okay. So, we can speak loudly and boldly. think though that especially
probably for women, it's something that you need to have some type of confidence
in first or and and I don't think that you need to be able to articulate it.
Mhm. Right. In in a way that you've got some background and some understanding of this uh but also how getting I mean I
have two daughters, a wife, y uh sisters, cousins, right? I mean, this
is always a strange topic regardless. It's always a strange and uncomfortable top. Not always, but
usually uncomfortable, right? And so, how do you just pierce that?
Yeah. So, well, the to to pierce it to begin with is to I mean, it's just part of
putting aside um cognitive distortions, not engaging in emotional reasoning
because these are all it's a highly emotional topic for good reason. I mean, this is like sexuality and
relationships. Like, it's highly personal. It's highly intense. And these the discomfort with it comes from, well,
we we don't talk about it. So, how could anyone possibly understand it if we're
not having conversations about it? We have to be able to engage with it. And this is why the polygamy denial movement
has taken off so strong because they've been able to capitalize on women's insecurity and men's guilt surrounding
this topic. And I find that problematic in many ways. Uh not that people can't
have their difficulties with it, but when that's all we're looking at and we looking at in this kind of like
self-reflexive axiomatic nature where it's like this is all it can ever be. Um
that is it's a cognitive distortion. It's looking at it all or nothing. It's black or white thinking. Um I have I
actually made a list of all the cognitive distortions and the ways that we see those um happen in terms of uh
plural marriage as a topic. And so for me I was just more interested and I was
helpful because I was approaching this as a filmmaker um first of all and so I was looking at it for not necessarily for myself at
first but for these characters. These characters are living plural marriage. What do they think? That has nothing to do with me. So I'm very interested in
like the anthropology of that. So I was able to fully dive into let me understand them on their terms according
to the ways they're talking about it because that has nothing to do with me and leaning into the conflict and the
nuance and the and and what's going on there. That's interesting art. That's interesting film making. That's what I
care about. That's what I'm trained to do in media is to engage with those things. And so by leaning into the
discomfort, that's how I was able to kind of push through and be like, wait, there's a lot more nuance here. And so
as a starting point, um I think first of all just listening to the women historically, which I would love to
we'll jump into some of that in a second. Um talking about the women, let them discuss this themselves. Look at
the actual fruits of what was happening in Utah. Not putting aside any of the bad things. Like sure there's some bad
things, but there's so many beautiful good things that were happening. And those always get overlooked or ignored
in every way. And I find that really, really troubling, especially when these women are essentially screaming like,
"I'm not a victim. I'm doing what I want." And it's like, well, I find that victimization of women where it's like
they're just brainwashed. They just don't know. They just had to say that. I find that extremely misogynistic and problematic because it's like, okay,
well, are women agents and people or are they subservient to men? Um because if
they like you can't have both, so which is it going to be? Um, and I choose to
believe in women and their capacity as rational beings. Yeah. So, you're looking into this. What
you say anthrop you went into an interdisciplinary approach. Yes. Okay. Which I love. I love context.
Yes. Uh, add some context into what you found. Yeah. So um obviously we'll we'll touch
on the history at some point but the the anthropology this is where we have like
the sociology the biology the re the evolutionary psychology sexuality
there's a lot of pieces and if any one of those are individually contested about like okay what's the validity of x
y or z I'm like okay but what about this field what about this field it all kind of keeps coming back and informs my
opinions on plural marriage Uh and what has been really fascinating is seeing
okay well 83% of all world civilizations engage with polygyny um which is one man
marrying multiple women. Uh polyandri which is a woman with multiple men that's like almost it almost doesn't
show up. It's like it's like a fraction of a percentage. Um monogamy has only existed as like a
legally imposed system. And even when monogamy exists, uh certainly affairs
exist and powerful men have always had multiple partners. Like you look at like the top 100 most influential men, it's
like they all had multiple partners. Like what's going on here in terms of like male sexuality and male male driven
things? Um we also look at things like um hypergamy. So um women have a
instinctual for good reason um a a a instinct towards hypergamy. Hypergamy is
it's a filtering tendency. Yeah. It's the tendency of women to seek a partner that they view
as as good or better than them in whatever regard. Now the reason for this
is because the the reproductive relationship between men and women is asymmetrical. It's
inherently asymmetrical. Women pay the physical cost of reproduction and men um
necessarily pay an economic cost in supporting her through what will be the most physically and emotionally and
mentally vulnerable point of her life. So if she's going to engage with that, she needs to be paired with someone that
she feels can do the things she would normally do for herself as good or better. And so I think a lot of times
hypergamy looks pretty reductively where it's like it's purely an economic consideration. It's not necessarily. It can be intelligence. it's physicality.
It depends on what we all have different, you know, in terms of attraction. It's like what are you looking for? Um there
is there's more nuance. There's more things to play with, you know, in terms of what that actually looks like. But we
see that occur. I mean, cuz we even see there are college educated women who are
marrying non-educated men, but a lot of those men are like bluecollared workers who are like own an HVAC company. And so
it's like that's still hypergamy even though they have a college degree you know. Um
well you see this also you know more recently with technology with dating apps. Yes. It it has hyper it's hyper hypergamy.
It is is what has happened and it's it's actually a real problem because you have
for the first time really you you have for example we'll filter by height. Well, you yeah,
that's one, too. But but what it produces is you it produces there are there are a lot more women,
for example, and this is obviously I'm talking about outside of the church here, but yes, it's there's a lot more women that are
having sex than men are having sex. And you kind, you know, you say, well, wait a minute, that's not usually the
way we look at it, right? But that's what's happening because there are fewer men having that sex with many more
partnersh. Mhm. Well, we also have women who are just entirely self- selecting out of the mating pool. Um where they're
like, if I can't pair with what I want, then I just simply won't pair.
Which is a l this has this is a social consequence of the soioeconomic liberation of women. Uh and so we are
seeing a plummeting birth rate internationally and that is female
driven and female choice. And people will talk about it this way like the the scientists are looking at this. They're
like this seems to be a a cost of the socioeconomic liberation of women and
they're like that's still we don't want to roll that back but like what are we going to do? How are we going to fix this? And this is um there's a Norwegian
um I forgot what his profession if he's a sociologist or whatever. I've interviewed Matt Matt Larson.
Yeah. So I know he um polygyny is one of his potential suggestions of like whatever women are going to choose in
order to procreate. Um and he has a lot of really interesting thoughts on that.
Um, but it's all like it's it's all imshed in these things. And I really
appreciate his approach where he's where he looks at it as men and women are making whatever
choices they're making in mass. We can't like blame and say, well, they need to just change their they need to change
their what they're like biologically driven to select. It's like, no, we need to play ball with
what those those drivers are. We have to figure out how are we going to actually solve this as a problem because it's a
massive problem and you know is this is the solution going to be rolling back the rights of women. I mean if we all start dying out that is absolutely
what's going to happen. I don't really want that. I don't think that that's in line with what I saw in the early church
of what they wanted to have happen. I don't think that that's in line with the will of God. Uh but that will become a
real that is a possible reality. So are you saying there's a dichotomy there then? It's it's the more rights
women have, the lower the fertility rate is going to go. I think that women's rights and plural
marriage are connected. The higher the lower level of women's
rights increases the polygamy. Um no I'm saying that the so there's this thing
called integral theory which is basically this um advancement of like
societies start as a hunter gatherer and then they develop agriculture and then they develop and it's this way of
looking at like how do society we go to modernism and then postmodernism like we have these steps of progression in order
to move forward with our development as a whole and there's ways you can look at
it You know, there's some criticism of integral theory, but I think it's pretty darn good. It in terms of it
encompassing a lot of like eastern thought, western thought all together. It really is a meta theory that combines
a lot of things. Um whether or not the precise minutia of where um can Wilbur
divides it is right. I think we can all look at like well it seems like societies advance in certain ways and
move forward. This is also um supported by the church of Jesus Christ of saints line upon line precept upon precept
there a little hair there a little. So if we look at something like um let's go back hunter gatherer right um we have we
don't really have a wealth inequality going on we have a natural degree of polygyny happening um this is actually
information got from Mads Larin nor normally like a man couldn't really support more than four women
and so you know and everywhere that polygyny has exists not everyone was practicing it it was it it kind of was a
way to manage the pressures of the society to a degree of mate selection.
Mhm. After we invent agriculture, we have the invention of wealth inequality. So we
have the invention of wealth inequality, we have men who are able to hoard wealth and economic power and therefore are
able to make the selection of like I'm going to start hoarding these women and creating these like large herums.
problem. That is a problem because that is it's it's a natural
thing that happens in the progression of society, but it's not necessarily what human nature should be going, if that
makes sense. It's like part of this it it the new economic system enables this in a way that it wasn't before. So, this
is where I look at something like um uh the the idea that God's standard is
monogamy unless he otherwise commands. Mhm. Um because now when we impose monogamy, okay, now we have this this place where
um at least men are all equal players in in the mating market. And I think it's in those in those circumstances that's
where we see a lot of western thought further develop. I mean it's estab monogamy as a legal standard. It's
established by Greece and Rome which is our foundational western thought. Um,
and it was really when Christianity adopted it in that Roman, that's when it became more a moral code than just a
legal code because it was like this is just how we're going to manage it legally. And they didn't really care
about affairs. Like there wasn't it was a rational approach, but it wasn't necessarily a spiritual or moral
obligation in the way that Christianity didn't oppose, which I think is really really lovely. Um but I mean what kings
in Europe still had like court mistresses that were wellknown and had
power. But by and large we have monogamy happening and it's in those circumstance that we
have the development of democracy. We see this development of of women's rights and like people starting to have
a voice power going to the people and I think so monogamy is good. I think that monogamy is good right in those circumstances. So now, but let's
continue, right? Because I believe it's a line upon line. So I think it I think it is the Lord's standard unless
otherwise commanded. I think there's a reason like I would never practice it without the Church of Jesus Christ
Lattery Saints authorizing it and saying this is what we're doing now. There's exactly one man in downtown Salt Lake
that gets to turn that key to make that be the case. Um so
but what then we have we have monogamy and then we have the women's rights
start to emerge. Um something that I think is really beautiful in um early Latter-day Saint history is there was
this intrinsic belief that um the advancement of women's rights was a part
of the restoration that it was with the restoration of the gospel and this final
dispensation this dispensation of the fullness of times as Joseph Smith turns that key there's an outpouring of truth
and light and there is this belief that um that these curses are being lifted.
Think about the ways that like um Adam and Eve are cursed in the garden and it's like we are now in a dispensation
where those curses are going to be lift are are lifted through like line upon
line but throughout this dispensation. I think that we can look at that with all sorts of groups where it's like look at
these these cursings these ways that like we have um this development of like
rights and and um you know I think it's kind of beautiful
you know and so a lot of these early Latterday Saints they looked at the Senica Falls Convention no Latterday
Saints were involved in that and they're like but because Joseph Smith had turned the key that's why the Senica Falls
Convention happened and like the right the Women's suffrage is like the will of God and the church as a whole, men and
women very much advocated for women's right to vote and they said this is something that they should be doing and
this is an incredible thing. There's actually can I read this really beautiful thing? I'm going to read this selection from
George Cuchanan that is this is in the juvenile instructor in 1884 and it truly is
really incredible where he talks about the way that plural marriage has been a
mechanism to further develop and emancipate women from this like original
curse of Eve basically. So it's long but it's very good. Okay, let's do it. Plural marriage has
not degraded women in this territory. It is true that a dissatisfied, discontented, unhappy woman, whether in
plural marriage or in monogamy, makes no progress. She droops and sinks under imaginary, but what are her real but are
to her are real troubles, and she ceases to be a factor in any importance in the body of the politic. A woman so
constituted, whether the only wife of one man or the plural wife of a man, is alike unhappy. But where women exercise
their powers and cultivate self-reliance, leaning up leaning up on leaning upon God for the strength which
he is ready to give, her opportunities for develop under plural marriage are greater than usually afforded under the
system of monogamy. She becomes in some respects the head of her family and from
the nature of the case is compelled to assume responsibility that under other circumstances she would not feel. with a
properly constituted woman. This calls forth her full powers. There is a necessity for this exercise and she
rises to the um exigency of the position and exhibits a strength and power which surprises herself as well as those who
are around her. She ceases to lean upon man to the extent that she would do were she not compel she not compelled to
assume were she not compelled to assume the duties and responsibilities connected with the charge of her
children and her household. Experience is gained. strength is developed. The power of governing is called into
exercise. Selfishness and self-ease are sacrificed and the perfect type of womanhood is brought forth. Women in
this territory have a grand sphere of usefulness open for them. They labor in a field which which there is no bound.
Their opportunities for usefulness are unequaled, and in every legitimate labor which they undertake, they have the aid
and encouragement of the other sex. The incentive to become intelligent, to comprehend principle, to be strong is
greater here than any other community that we know anything of. And I'm gratified to see that our sisters are
availing themselves of the grand opportunities which are furnished them of usefulness and progress. The effect
of their examples upon the rising generation will be of immense value. And as the generations roll by, nobler types
of womanhood will be developed until the penalty that was laid upon women in the beginning, that thy desire shall be thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee, will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that
queenly dignity and self-control, which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior. Much of the
intellectual movement among her sisters is due to the example and influence of Sister Eliza Arseno Smith. She and her
co-workers have labored diligently to elevate their sex and to inspire them with an enobling and holy ambition. That
which they are doing today is not as valued as it will be in days to come. It will require the historian of another
generation to award them the credit that is due to their self-sacrificing and loving labors. But the credit due to
them, however long it may be postponed, will yet be given to them, and their names will stand out bright in the
annals of of this person of of this people in the days of power yet to come.
Like such a profound examination of this this optimism of
like what there are no limits to what women can become. Mhm.
And something about like plural marriage in the way and we can we can get into some of those specifics in in a little
bit, but I think of um monogamy being a necessary step in that progression. And
then plural polygamy. Yeah. I think it becomes this hero's journey, right? Where it's like the
we're leaving the world and entering a new and entering a new world and then returning to the old world in a new way.
People are not going to like you saying that. I know they won't. But this is so what was so striking about the plural
marriage of that time is it was women making the decision. And to me, when I
look at something like the the proclamation of the on the family, which I love that document,
um there's something very profound in it that people will
they don't read it the same way where we look at it where it's um a a father, a
man's responsibility is to provide for his family. That includes wife and
child. Mhm. A woman's responsibility is to nurture her children. That's children.
So men have a responsibility to their wife that women don't have to their
husband to the same degree. Mhm. Now if a man is going to preside, which I believe I mean that's the thing about
like the church and Abrahamic religions is they are inherently patriarchal. Mhm.
Patriarchy can become really really an exercise of unrighteous dominion. But I
believe that it is actually the proper order. Like patriarchy is that's the
Abrahamic that is the Abrahamic covenant. It's a patriarchal um system.
Mhm. And I mean something that's meaningful to me is I loved growing up the word
patriarchal I always associated with blessing. Um and I think there are ways that it
can also be a curse. But when we look at this idea of a man presiding over his family and we kind of
downplay what that means but it it means preside over the family.
If women are able to fully make that choice then that is what makes that just. It's
not equal. It's not tyranny. We have an obsession with like it needs to be the same. But it's like men and
women already have an asymmetrical thing. Just going down to the the bare bones of the reproductive relationship. there's an asymmetry.
There's a binary and and and they're the flu influences of culture, western culture especially are are they're
attacking that in every way possible. Yeah. The eraser of gender from our
society, the attempt to do so has hurt men and women across the board. It is a a bad thing. Now, I will say we can have
we can engage with nuance. Like if we look at this is now going into some of the sociology. We look at um gender
there's bell curves, right? We look at men tend to be taller than women. That doesn't mean there aren't women who are
taller than a bunch of men. There's not men who are shorter than like most women. Like we have those overlapping
bell curves. But to say that means we need to throw out height differences as a way to approach gender is silly. It's
kind of like saying, well, because Y is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, we have to throw out vowels
and consonants because we have this exception. It's like, no, we just have exceptions because there's nuance.
because we're looking when you're looking at broad sways of information, we have to be able to engage it on those
terms and then also acknowledge that there's variation, right? So, this goes back into like anthropology where we
have a tendency in the societies where men would hunt and women would gather.
There is evidence that there are women who did participate in hunting. That doesn't mean women are just as likely to
hunt as men, but it's like there are women who maybe have an aptitude or desire to also hunt. And that's that
doesn't that doesn't change what's going on in a gendered perspective, you know, and so being able to engage with that.
But back to the pre presiding thing, I think the only way for that to be just is if a woman can fully make that
decision. The only way she can fully make that decision is when she is socioeconomically empowered where she is
like, I don't need a man to survive to a degree. And so I'm selecting I can I can
make a full selection. Okay. So that's where I was going to that's where I was going to go with this though because you're saying that there is a what did you call it? A progression
of sorts. Yes. And the hero's journey, right? And and yet as that journey as we go through
that because we seem to be toward the end of it actually in a way socioeconomically.
Yeah. Perhaps oh yeah I have yeah keep going. I have a great thing there. And so we yet as those rights I mean I
would argue that we're becoming for example a feminized society. I would agree with that at this point. Right. So you've got
women with rights with power. uh as that increases
the the patriarchy decreases I would say and so if you've got that arc
going forward how is polygamy going to be the next step or going beyond that so I actually I don't think that those
things are um linked in that same way I think that what plural marriage allows for is allows for women to have a full
breadth of like making that hypergamous decision and I think that also encourages men to um to be their best
selves. What I think is the biggest issue with with men right now um coming
from a woman, but like when we look at the degendering of society, it's the devaluation of masculinity where it's
like any masculinity is toxic. And I don't subscribe to that. I think that we need masculinity. Women crave
masculinity. Women's there stated and revealed preferences. The revealed preferences of of women is that they
sexually want a masculine man. like whether or not they say no, he needs to be and they want to kind of like touchy
feely, I want him to be like a woman, but it's like no. Yeah. You actually want the partnership and
assistance of another woman in your life and you want a male sexual partner.
Like that's really what's going on here. Um and so when we
Sorry, I like lost my train of thought. Um well, we were talking about the arc, right? Yes, the arc there. So when I look at
all of the quotes of the early Latter-day Saints in Utah is they
continually were like were talking about plural marriage as a mechanism by which
women would develop to their highest self basically that they would be able
to um like George Cuchanan said like stand side by side with men and have
their curse removed. Now I do think there's a corresponding curse um with men like let's look at the curse of Adam
and Eve. We have Eve um primarily they're looking at thy desire shall be thy husband he shall rule over thee and
then we look at Adam and it's like all by the sweat of you you shall labor by
the sweat of your brows you shall eat all the days of your life. What resolves women's curse is plural
marriage which is very demanding of women but ultimately blesses them. What
solves men's curse. Wait, so how does that solve women's cur the women's curse? Yeah. So basically there's this it's
this self-reliance this not the self-reliance this reliance on men like economically and this like subservience
to to men. Not in a way of like righteous like submission or these things but it's this this lack of
independence. It's a temporal need. Yes. So it becomes I think that monogamy
it's very easy to be codependent. You cannot be codependent in plural marriage. That doesn't mean that you don't have love. I think that you can
have love. I think that that is definitely a part of it. Um but the codependency in terms of like I I need
you to do all the things and like this kind of self-reflexive
you know that is not you can't do that in plural marriage. Additionally,
having children is impossible to do anything else really.
Like women who work and um have children are like this is impossible to do both.
And I do agree with the criticism. People will will criticize like well our economic system like we want women to
work for the sake of working for the sake of a paycheck. I do agree with that criticism where it's like okay like that
is pretty silly but the idea that women don't have other like interests that are
independent of their family like think about all the women who I mean I I think of someone like a Jane Goodall who like
what a shame if she never studied gorillas she had this passion she had this calling she has this thing that she needs to do um and I understand that I
think she had kids I don't I'm not I don't know her biography but that was just an example of like a woman with a
passion who seems to have is kind of life calling. Um what enables women to accomplish
those things are other women in their home supporting them. We look when we
look at the attempts to make men uh take
on more household duties and uh deal with the children more and like clean
the house more. We are not, no matter how we intentempt it, no matter how um
men are like, I'm going to do it. Mhm. That's not what is happening. We know this from studies that men in the
domestic space, they are going to tolerate a greater degree of like uncleanliness and so it's always going
to be a woman being like, "This needs to be cleaned this way." And like that's a natural tendency. There's a disagreement
there. um this kind of this this ability to organize the household. Like we look at it and it's like women do the mental
and emotional work of the household like in a huge way and they attempt to get
men to do that in the same of like in the way of running the household, not necessarily presiding over it. It's a
whole thing, but um they don't do it. And the women are kind
of like there's a really great article in the Atlantic called Life among the post feminists where it's like there's this kind of like this is how the world
should be and it's like that would be nice but we're not seeing those results.
Those aren't happening. Like women are no women are overburdened at this point
because they are they've they've bought in. I think bought in. And and again, this is not everybody. There are I hear
certain individuals. There are certain women that have just an unbelievable capacity, right? They are working full-time.
They're super successful. They've got three or four kids. Um
but it's a rarity, right? I think it's a rarity to to be able to do that. It would be for a man, too. It would be a rarity to ever be
able to do that kind of thing. But but there is a uh uh a buy in today
that I can be I can be a careerist. I can go in and and climb the corporate
ladder. Uh I can have my two to four kids and uh run my household and meet
the needs of my family and do all of the and the house. Cleaning the house,
right? Uh it's it's too much. women are overburdened and it's in a way that like we can say
well men should just be taking on more but it's like this isn't happening though so women either just which is why
women are like okay well I just won't pair off at all you know I think men would take on more it's just they're not going to take on more of
that well well cuz men have their own like biological drivers of what they do in
the family system um we look at let's look at childare right so we have we
know that women have a greater it's like the oxytocin release when they're
comforting their child and they're holding their child and it's like it's okay. And the child
has a greater oxytocin release as well when they go to mom for comfort. That's
who they want to comfort them. When they're crying, when they're distressed, they want mom to comfort them. And it is a greater what that's chemically
happening in mother and child. When ch when the child wants to have fun, they
go to dad and they have a greater oxytocin release for having fun with dad
than having fun with mom. Mhm. And men and fathers have that same thing
where they have more of an oxytocin release when they're playing with their children over when they're doesn't mean
that they can't comfort their children. It doesn't mean that mothers can't play with their children. That's those are important things too. But it shows that
like no there's biologically hormones occurring that are encouraging that
behavior. And we have this tendency of um like children how like women their child
making them feel secure and loved and then dad teaches the child how to be
apart from mom. M this actually gets back that's never I was going to talk about heavenly mother
because I'm just like that's a whole other thing but um I think that that's an interesting model to look at when we
look at this idea of heavenly father and heavenly mother and it's like okay well certainly from a heavenly um perspective
we do see paternal investment is essential and paternal investment is essential amongst human species and like
I mean obviously that's a huge um value of of the church and I think that, you
know, to a degree, um, the the the absence, if you will, of a heavenly mother. I'm like, well, maybe she's
doing some other things. Like, there's kind of this tendency like she's she's not she doesn't have a voice and she's
somewhere else. And I'm like, yeah, well, or she could be doing something else. Like, eternity in the universe is a really big place. Maybe this is our
afternoon in the park with dad. And he's like, mom's doing some other things. Don't stop crying for her. Like, we're
here to accomplish something. That's neither here nor there. That's another side thing. I think that we that's kind
of an example of how we tend to look at these things so reductively and axiomatically where we're like this is
the only way to look at it and it's like okay well Mormonism as a theology is so iterative and and creative in terms of
like we have our doctrine and we have like revealed revelation and I do agree that like the reasoning and logic can't
replace that but it certainly is something that's important it's a value um that we should be approaching I have
some quotes. I'm going to read about that in just one second. But like
we can we can play with this. I mean, I even was reading and I think it's in the Desert News where Eliza Arseno Smith
puts out an article like here's how I think resurrection mechanically happens. And then Brigham Young the next week
puts out another article. Um I think you're wrong. I think this is how resurrection mechanically happens. And he didn't tell her to shut up. They just
had this debate about it theologically. Um, which I'm also like, oh yeah, so Eliza Snow's just Brigham Young. Young's
mouthpiece. She's she publicly was disagreeing with him about mechanics of resurrection. I don't know. And then we
have um in that early time frame too, we have apostles disagreeing about evolution, you know. Um, and so this
idea that we can like have these discussions in these spaces and look at things in different ways is really
beautiful. And this is like essential in terms of um what uh Joseph Smith even
said like I'm going to read this quote from him. It's like Mormonism is truth and every man who embraces it fills
himself at liberty to embrace every truth. Consequently, the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and
priestcraft fall all at once from his neck, and his eyes are open to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over
priestcraft. Mormonism is truth. In other words, the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is truth. The first
and fundamental principle of our holy religion is that we believe that we have a right to embrace all and every item of
truth without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstition notion
superstitious notions of men or by the dominations of one another. And when when the truth is clearly demonstrated
to our minds and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same like this seeking of truth, we're able to to we're
supposed to go and find that and add that to we're supposed to seek that and find that and add that. And so I feel
sad when I look at like these women's issues and plural marriage and we look at it through like one little narrow
lens and I'm like there's a lot more possibility here that we can play with
that is quite exciting to me. Um because this idea that I believe that women have
a lot to offer. I think that motherhood is essential and important and is like a
very beautiful part of being a woman. But I also know that women have additional passions and minds and and
capacities to have a greater influence on on the greater
um people. And this is something that the early latter saints practice. I mean we had the women's exponent run by Emily
B. Wells was just this woman's newspaper advocating for the rights of women and advocating for polygamy and advocating
for the church. And we have um these women going off like being called and set apart to go get medical degrees and
become doctors. Like the Desireette Hospital, the board of directors was entirely women. Um these women are
having I mean Mrs. Kane who's um is Thomas Kane, I love him. Uh his wife, they're non-me they were non-members,
but he was friendly with the Saints. She came in was shocked by just like oh these women have all these different
sorts of careers and and things and they seem to be doing well. And in in terms
of paternal investment, she even acknowledged that these men, despite having so many children, are very
invested in their children. She's like, I think she's like, I saw a man with his 29th child and he was doing on her as if
she were his only child and and it was a redhead, no doubt. Which was just so like she was kind of
just shocked. It's like, how is he giving so much love and attention to his 29th child? M
um and I think that that speaks to the priorities and and the amazing breadth
of of the Latter-day Saints and we have a such a beautiful heritage. Something else she observed was um unlike what we
saw we would see at that time frame, Latter-day Saints were equally happy if they had a boy or a girl. And I think
that that speaks volumes in terms of what Latter-day Saints believed about the eternal destinies of men and women
and that they were equally glorious even though they are different. And that's
okay and beautiful because what I'm interested in more so than like how I think should be is I'm interested what
are going to give us good outcomes. What are good outcomes for for all of us? And I believe that God knows that better
than we do. So you talk about historically with a church. Give me some examples of some
things historically that that you were looking at. Yeah. So obviously we have um women's
right to vote really early on. W married women are owning property. They had a
very liberal ability to divorce which that speaks to the belief that women are
the mate selectors. even um Brigham Young's discourse in 1861 where he talks
about um this idea that a woman who is unsatisfied with her ceiling can just
like trade up if that man will have her and like women get to make that decision. Uh and
wow see that's really scary for a guy. That is like wow it is. But at the same time, he also
said, "Hey, even though you might not be super happy with your husband right now
in this moment, it's like I mean, if you need to divorce him, divorce him. But like you are underestimating where what
he what his potential is to become. And if you're still unhappy, then you're going to it'll be fine. There's
ways that this can be happy." Um, and I will say going into this, like I think
people look at this where it's like it's such a sad condition for women and it's like I think that there's just as much
cost and risk for men and yeah, that isn't brought up very much because I mean personally, you know,
I've been married for a long time and I adore my wife. I love my wife. I love
her today more than I ever have, right? But I to think of
managing a household with that type of relationship doubled
that is beyond what I feel like I maybe I have the capacity to do.
Well, that is like a good thing to be aware because this goes back to um this is Exodus. Something that really annoys
me is when people like usually opponents of the church will be like men could have an infinite number of wives and I'm
like be so for real. I mean there's the Exodus scripture. It's like if if um if
he take him another wife, her food, her raia and her duty of marriage, he shall he not diminish.
And so the idea of if you can't deal justly with multiple women do not do not
marry multiple women. This is also why plural marriage is meant to be driven by women. I mean even if we look at people
get worked up about Doctrine of Covenants 132. I love that that scripture. Um people get freaked out
about like if they're given to him, if the virgins are given to him, like he can have what is what? And it's like
okay, but who's doing the giving? If we look at how the ceiling covenant was um structured um at that time frame,
well, in terms of giving, the first wife would give the hand of the new wife to
the husband. And so it's the women doing the giving to a man. And so it's like yeah it's
it's under the direct direction and authorization of the Lord through the priesth.
Um and also at the end of that that's that that section I mean we have Emma threatened with destruction. They're
like saying see like look and I'm like men are threatened with destruction all the time. Like she's fine but whatever.
Um I think that people can handle it. I
don't know. Um, it seems like she they talk about it in a specific way where
this is specific to Emma potentially not being subject to the law
of Sarah is because she is married to the man who held the ceiling power. And
it kind of does structure it that way in the syntax. And I'm like, I don't, no one really talks about it that way. I'm
like, maybe I'm crazy. But it seems to say that it's when the wife of the one
who holds those keys. And I'm like, well, there's one person who holds those keys. So, it's talking about that. But it also says that she must administer
the law as Sarah administered the law unto Abraham, which indicates that women
are the ones administering. It's almost like a marriage priesthood. Yes. Yeah. And so that is something where you
have the best the best outcomes of plural marriage that we see are when women were the ones making the decision
both the existing wives saying yes we would like let's have her and and her consenting and agreeing that's when we
had good outcomes cuz that's kind of how it can be just that's how it can be just
is we have this this consenting and this decision-m um so anyway I don't know if what your
original question was. Yeah. No, I think you answered it. So, so I want to go back again to saying, you know, the socioeconomic side of
things where really what I it seems what you're saying and I think you're right, is that
in that position where and again this is we're talking about only a portion of the world. Yes. at this point uh of course the rest
of the portion of the world is going to be higher in the level of polygamy but uh
where a woman because of the socioeconomic circumstances is really given pure agency
at that point. Is that what you're kind of saying? Right. She's actually given pure agency because she can she can will it over
needing it? Yes. Necessarily. I mean obviously maybe emotionally maybe what you're saying spiritually it's a need but but
where where her temporal needs are already met and and therefore she can make the decision outside of those demands.
Yes. Is that right? Yep. And I think that now this is going back to with that plural marriage. I
think what pairs really well with plural marriage in terms of like this goes to the curse of Adam is the law of
consecration is what delivers man from that curse which that the idea of
interesting what the law that's that's that's I've never put those two together because you're the law of consecration is in a sense a
similar principle to plural marriage. Yes. It's the masculineized version of it. That is really interesting. Um, and so
those are really bound together. And this goes back to now like that integral theory. We have the law of consecration.
We have things common in in specific ways. And like obviously we can look at ways that attempts at that have gone
very badly just like we can look at attempts of polygamy have also gone very badly, right? Because where's the
where's the agency there, right? Um, and so going into like our economic
development as a human species, I think like a capitalistic society, we're in a capitalistic society that has a place
that's so that is a necessary aspect of our development as people. But is that
the end all beall? I think that there is an additional switch up. Now, in terms of on both of these principles with law
of consecration and plural marriage, I think it's totally fair to criticize the idea of like, well, can we can we
actually practice those in their optimal capacity in this life or is that millennium only?
I think that's a fair criticism. I don't think that that's necessarily the case.
I think that's worth debate. I think that's worth discussion. I think that's an exciting thing to look at. But I think that I would I wish most
Latter-day Saints are more okay with the idea of consecration. Like, oh, we don't practice it now, you know, even though
we believe in it and we covenant in in that way for the law of consecration, but we don't live the economic model of
the law of consecration. Um, most Latter- Day Saints can like handle that and it's like, yeah, that's great
because that's the ideal. And I would love if we could feel the same sort of
comfort with plural marriage because they are basically the same law. That's really interesting. Very
interesting. All right. Any other historical quotes or anything you wanted to bring up there? Oh, yeah. I wanted to say one more thing
in terms of like cuz something that people take a major issue with is the idea of like well if a
man has multiple wives it means that women are less valuable than men and I just completely reject that premise. I
think that's axiomatic and doesn't make any sense. I'm like on what basis are you saying that they're worth less? Um
is anything in the world being different? The inherent nature of
variety necessitates inequality. Um there's a really cool great quote from
Terrell Given spoke at the Wayfair conference a few weeks ago and he talked about forgiveness is
inherently an expression of moral asymmet as symmetry and he says Jesus was trying to dislodge
the idol of inequitable justice. I'm asking you to consent willingly to a perpetual imbalance in the universe. The
idea that we have a savior who can forgive us already shows that like the universe is imbalanced and inequal
because that is a ne a necessary condition of variety. But that doesn't
mean and agency and agency. And that's what's so powerful about our
savior and the atonement and the godhead is the ability to make that just and to
fully to fully actualize us because like what is actually best for us
um at the end of the day. And I think that I think about the parables of the workers in the vineyard and what we have
Christ saying, "Take that as thine and go thy way. I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for
me to do what I will with my own? Is thine evil because I am good?" And then he talks about um there's Peter asking
about John the beloved like wait what's going on with him? And the Savior says, "If I will that he tar till I come, what
is that to thee? Follow thou me." And I think that that really speaks to
sometimes we get very like what about I want this same thing is this comparison and I think think about like a child
who's like I want the same thing as my sibling and everything. It's like okay
well imagine we just all the children get the same gift every Christmas.
That's not just that's not what every child wants. You know it's the variety
that's so beautiful. And so when I think about the idea of it's not fair that
there's one man and multiple women I wonder about on on what basis you know
like nothing's fair and also on what value in what basis are you devaluing because let's look at like okay which is
more valuable the sun or the earth okay and under what circumstances okay let's say under the ability to create life
which is more essential the sun or the earth in the propagation of life we need both like it's Well, it brings
up the idea of well, is fair even the highest value? Is it should it be such a
high value in the beginning? Because fair is well, you have certain benefits as a woman
that I don't have. I have certain benefits of a man that you don't have. So, is that fair?
Right. It's not something I tell my kids all the time. It's like fair is not the important thing here. Y
I mean you try to be just but but fair if that's your top value you're going to be miserable.
It's a false idol in my opinion. Like it's something it's like we follow Jesus Christ. I believe that our heavenly
father knows what will make us happier better than we do. I know that on a profound level. Um and it's something
that I feel like I can have total faith and trust in and it's such a relieving
feeling. And I think that I mean when it comes down to it on the plural marriage debate and with the polygamy down and
all these things um I mean Michelle Sona said it herself. It's a debate on the nature of God and her being like God
could never command this. And I say instead, I believe that God would never command something that's not for our
benefit and for our good. And his ways are higher than our ways. And I have trust and faith in him. And I know that
his church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And it is a really
glorious and incredible um gospel and reality. And I don't think
that there's anything that we need to be afraid of. I think that by fully engaging in these and the willingness to
allow things you don't want to be true to be true
kind of is what will set you like the truth will set you free. Being able to fully engage with that no matter the cost has been the most
freeing experience of my life. And I it's it's something that makes me sad
when I hear about women feeling so much anxiety about this topic and I just don't think that that is necessary.
Yeah. Well, Selene, really appreciate your time, your thoughts in and articulating all of this. Uh I I think
it'll be wellreceived, but we're going to see. I I know it won't be wellreceived.
That's okay. Um, I know that what the comments are going to be primarily people saying whatever they will about
me, but I if if it even reaches a couple people, yeah,
like that means the world to me. Well, it it's it's got to be hashed out. It does. And I and I've I've got people
telling me to be quiet. Um and and my response is you know I
I don't want to dissent I I don't want to to to disseminate contention but
whenever you have challenges like this and there are issues if you put your head in the sand it doesn't do anybody
good any good and you're really postponing the inevitable it's better to approach it directly talk about it be
peaceful so to speak in a way that is okay we're going to try and understand all of these
And uh I I even think that those that are pushing against
um the idea that that this is a test that God has given, right, is that's and
in some ways it's necessary to have that and to be able to have that discussion. So yeah,
appreciate you coming on. Thank you so much.