Polygafeminist Surprise by Naiah
Guess what? I believe in polygamy–well, in a sense; I do not condemn the idea. I do not believe in its current practice, and I certainly do not believe in the evils with which those who insist on practicing it nowadays tend to pervert it. Not believing in practiciing it, though, is not the same as not believing in it. My heart just breaks when I see Latter-day Saints and others condemn it as a perversion or a threat to the institution of marriage. I think we have forgotten our past and that again and again it has been shown to be the Lord’s model for marriage–when undertaken at His behest. We, as Latter-day Saints, are hypocrites if we in the same breath express our testimony of Jospeh Smith and our condemnation of polygamy.
No, I’m not about to pack my bags for Texas, and neither do I question or doubt at all the veracity or authority of Official Declaration-1. Our church’s position is that we no longer practice polygamy. It is not one of condemnation of the idea itself. OD-1 is simply an extension of the 12th Article of Faith. We believe in being subject to the laws of the land, and the laws of the land prohibit plural marriage. Plain and simple–that’s all it says. To my knowledge, there has been no retraction of the doctrine itself.
I have seen the Family proclamation cited as evidence against polygamy. “Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.” I got news for ya, peeps; ain’t no quantities given. There is nothing in the language–either overt or in the syntax/grammar– of the Family Proclamation that dismisses polygamy. Polygamy is also marriage between man and woman. Each wife is sealed to her husband, one-to-one. Belief in marriage does not preclude belief in polygamy.
What about all the abuse? What about the unwilling child brides and the mistreated and cast-off wives? Um, frankly, that’s not polygamy; it’s child abuse and domestic violence. They are not intrinsic parts of plural marriage itself, and, therefore have no bearing on a discussion of the practice, particularly given that they occur in monogamous marriages as well. They are separate, but still disturbing issues, that the mis-practice of some has unfortunately yoked to polygamy in the minds of most people.
I should perhaps amend my first statement to read that I believe in healthy polygamy. Yes there can be such a thing. Assuming that it was both legal and reinstated by the Lord, it would first require a healthy first marriage–a marriage founded on love, honesty, respect, openness (good communication). Secondly, there would have to be the potential for a similarly healthy relationship with the second wife. Third, there would have to exist a healthy love and sisterhood between the sister-wives-to-be. I suppose I am also assuming that, by way of the health of the existing marriage(s), the husband would choose in harmony with his wife/wives any to come after.
Beyond that, you have, of course temporal concerns which can be worked out just as they are in any marriage. All families are juggling acts of needs and resources, regardless of how many wives are involved.
Should the laws of the land change, the Lord reveal through His prophet that the new and everlasting covenant is to be put into practice again, and my husband called to such I would meet it as an opportunity and a blessing and lovingly welcome another Mrs. Earhart.
I simply do not understand the level to which this doctrine bothers so many sisters. A loving, healthy household of sister-wives functioning together in life, each loving their husband and loving each other enough to share that husband, cooperating, supporting each other, sharing life’s joys and struggles as sisters should sounds like a fantastic, stable, and empowering way to live. Until an actual retraction, I will continue to view it so and to caution any faithful Latter-day Saint away from open condemnation of it.
I can apprecieate your well-grounded reasoning here and the religious nature from which it stems, but I have a further throught. You’re right to differentiate unhealthy polygamy, but isn’t there something inherenty unhealthy for women particulularly even about healthy polygamy? As a feminist, it seems to me that the very idea simply codifies male dominance over women (even if he is a very nice guy and respects all his wives). I could (maybe) be persuaded if women could take multiple husbands AND in practice did so at an equal level as men taking multiple wives, but I just don’t see that happening.
cheers,
Jon
Comment by Jon — February 27, 2006 @ 6:26 am
Naiah- interesting post and perspective. I agree that polygamy should be able to work in the ideal, amongst adult consenting parties. I share some of Jon’s concerns, however - are you defining polygamous arrangements where only men are allowed to marry more than one spouse? Or are women also allowed to marry more than one husband? If it’s the former, how is this inequality compatible with a “feminist” perspective?
Notwithstanding the difficulty most wives have with the idea of sharing their husband with multiple sexual partners as sanctioned by polygamous marriages, members of the Church react negatively to discussions of polygamy because practicing polygamists are now excommunicated, and polygamy has been quietly excised from the histories of past Church leaders in Church teaching manuals. If polygamy were such a wonderful blessing that we should be preparing to receive, why aren’t we encouraged to acknowledge the benefits and merits of polygamy instead of sweeping it under the rug? Why isn’t the Church filing lawsuits and actively working to change the law of the land to extend marriage benefits to polygamous couples?
Given our Church leaders’ reluctance to discuss polygamy (when was the last time you heard it mentioned positively by any modern Church leader?) it’s an open question as to whether we as Church members believe polygamy is inherently “wrong” or merely “illegal”. The Church needs to clarify this before we criticize our brothers and sisters expressing ambivalence or hostility towards the practice.
Comment by Elisabeth — February 27, 2006 @ 7:33 am
Could anyone please cite for me where and whom actually stated that polygamy is an eternal principle and doctrine? I had a friend the other day mention it to her new convert husband and he’s ready to jump ship.
Comment by Kanga — February 27, 2006 @ 7:40 am
Naiah:
As far as I am concerned it all comes down to what the Lord commands. My belief is that polygamy is wrong unless God commands it. Will he command it again? Who knows. I kinda doubt it. Jacob 2:30 gives a justification for his command in this issue. The church may never be in that situation again.
I admire your bravery and willingness to do what the Lord may command.
Comment by Eric — February 27, 2006 @ 7:47 am
Nd: Somehow, the topic of your first post was not a surprise ;-). A couple of quick observations:
1. I have not forgotten our past. I am not ashamed of anything in the Church’s past. I can’t explain all of the reasons for all of the Church’s practices in the past; however, I believe there were reasons they were practiced, including polygamy.
2. I believe OD-1 has a bit more force and effect than the 12th article of faith, such that it is not just an extension of that article. OD-1 has been canonized into Latter-day scripture, and has the force and effect of scripture. The 12th article of faith enjoys no such position. As a general guide, I agree the 12th article of faith is important to follow; however, taken to it’s logical extreme dictators and tyrants the world over would be entitled to have support in their oppression of people. I believe the 12th article of faith needs to be read in light of D&C 134:1-5. The consequences of violating the letter of the law of OD-1 and the 12th article of faith are dramatically different.
3. The Family Proclamation: As I’ve said before, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. The proclamation was drafted at a time when OD-1 was in full force and effect. It was crafted, I believe, with very careful fore-thought, resulting from much prayer, fasting, and discussion amongst the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Language and context are important. The Proclamation was drafted after OD-1, and in a time when the basic family unit has come under severe attack. I think as drafted, using the language “The Brethren” agreed to use, “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God,” (singular) The Proclamation is consistent with OD-1.
4. That said, I fully agree with you that if He saw fit, God could restore the practice. I have absolutely no idea if or when He will. Like you, it’s not a doctrine, or practice which troubles me, insofar as it was practiced when authorized. I think the portrait you paint of polygamy, is possible, but only through it’s authorized and divinely approved practice. As for me, I don’t know whether it is something I would want to practice. I have enough to do and enough to work on to be a better husband and father to just one wife and family. Thanks for your thought provoking post. I’m interested to see the responses of others.
Comment by Guy W. Murray — February 27, 2006 @ 8:41 am
I 2nd this. I believe polygamy was a so-called necessary evil to accomplish some temporary purposes, perhaps to raise up a righteous body of saints at the time (though I’m not convinced) and certainly to galvanize the faith of the early saints, though whether God “commanded” it or simply allowed it I think is still open for discussion. It certainly was a bitter trial of faith for many who practiced it.
My instinct, supported (I believe) by scriptures and the Spirit, is that polygamy is an exception and not the norm or the ideal. Nor do I think it will be widely practiced in Heaven, if at all.
I think it would rip my soul apart to have to live this principle and I think DH would flatly refuse. He’s very much a one-woman man (much to my delight and comfort).
For those of you who haven’t read it, a very good essay on why polygamy doesn’t resonate on a soul-level (for most people, anyway) is this one on BeliefNet. Also, this one by Jessica Guynn is a good meditation on the topic from an LDS perspective.
Comment by Artemis — February 27, 2006 @ 8:45 am
Naiha,
Have you read Comptom’s “In Sacresd Lonliness”? I would do a little reality checking before you falsely advertise one of the most demeaning practices tward women. It does not matter how loving the husband or first or second wife, it just doesn’t end up working out for anybody.
Comment by pellar — February 27, 2006 @ 9:07 am
I don’t actually have much argument with most of your reasoning, Naiah, and I actually once took a stance very much like yours. But you don’t go so far as to ask the questions that finally made polygamy impossible for me to accept, at least in any form we’ve seen/taught it as yet. Nor do I think polygamy could ever be practically positive in the real world (with all the weak human emotions and frailties and even time-limitations)
I detail those questions here.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 27, 2006 @ 9:13 am
Kanga,
You should have him read the Hinckley/Larry King Live interview. He says about Polygamy, “I think it is not doctrinal”. This is a forum in which he was able to give his opinion and get the message out to all of the misinformed day dreaming mormons that, hello, its over.
Why is it so easy to forget the racist teachings about blacks in the preisthood, the adam god theory, the blood atonement, etc. and yet we can not get over polygamy?
Comment by pellar — February 27, 2006 @ 9:18 am
Bravo, Naiah.
While I have some reservations about viewing polygamy as an “eternal” institution, I’m glad to hear someone talk about our brush with it in a positive light. I think many polygamist women from those days would be offended at how quick we are, with our lofty modernist enlightenment, to equate polygamy with abuse.
Comment by Jack — February 27, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Pellar,
Thanks. I’ve never personally thought it to be an eternal principle–good to know that my fav GBH doesn’t think it’s doctrine either. I don’t see the point of standing up for polygamy today in anticipation of perhaps having to live it later. Those who were asked (or forced) to live it in the past are to be admired for not killing themselves or others over it. But I don’t think showing it in a positive light now does anything other than polarize men and women with pointless “would you? could you?” what if’s that are laced with judgment on ficticious future obedience.
Comment by Kanga — February 27, 2006 @ 10:06 am
To explore some of the ideas raised in Naiah’s original post, and to jump in with the “feminist” in FMH, I’d like to hear thoughts on why/how polygamy (one man, many woman) is compatible with a “feminist” perspective. One reason polygamy may be compatible with feminism, is that feminism empowers women to take responsibility for their own destiny and make their own choices, and so women should be free to make their own choices to engage in any kind of sexual arrangement/relationship. As long as women are free to choose to enter into polygamous relationships, then feminism doesn’t have much to say about these relationships. Or does it?
What does feminism have to say about polygamous relationships? Are they good for women, like Naiah, who may choose them? Or, from a feminist perspective, should polygamy (one man, many women) be officially banned in modern society, regardless of whether or not women choose to enter into these relationships?
Comment by Elisabeth — February 27, 2006 @ 10:08 am
Quick vocabulary clarification (in response to the parenthetical clarificatioins in Elisabeth’s comment, #12):
polygamy-the taking of multilple spouses
polyandry-the takeing of multiple husbands
polygyny-the taking of multimple wives
That’ll help us be clearer.
I was referring to the practice generally of polygyny (which culturally tends to be called polygamy in church circles).
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:20 am
#1 isn’t there something inherenty unhealthy for women particulularly even about healthy polygamy? As a feminist, it seems to me that the very idea simply codifies male dominance over women
This just revealed to me an interesting bit of cultural bias in today’s society: we see a woman with multiple partners as downtrodden but a man with multiple partners as dominating.
Comment by manaen — February 27, 2006 @ 10:21 am
kanga,
at the time, plenty of notable church leaders claimed polygamy was eternal, necesary for highest salavation, the ideal, etc. so it would be easy to find quotes saying this, with recognizable names on them.
I would tell your friend’s husband that those people where just justifying and opining based on their present situation and undertsanding, and such opinions are not true.
Just like before blacks had the preisthood, there were all sorts of doctrinal justifications about whay that had to be- and then one day, they did have it, and people had to withdraw all their “dark curse” and “mark of cain” talk. Elder Bruce R McConkie had to apologize for filling in doctrine for why it could never happen and said he had spoken with less light and kowledge…
Comment by cchrissyy — February 27, 2006 @ 10:23 am
I second Elizabeth’s question, Naiah. Do you also have no problem with polygamy involving multiple men and one woman? You may already know this, but this type of polygamy (called polyandry) did exist in the early Church during the Nauvoo period. Check out Compton’s In Sacred Lonliness if you’re interested.
On a personal note, I cannot accept polygamy as my eternal future. I just don’t believe a just and loving God would require that from people who are unwilling. (I actually tend to think he won’t require it from anyone, willing or not. With all the millions of baby boys that die, I think there should be plenty of males up there ready to have one on one relationships.) Polygamy for me just does not jive with principles of marital fidelity, so I happily reject the idea that it will be in my eternal future.
And if by some chance it were reinstated in this life (I think this is impossible) there is no way I would participate. I’m sure I would not be alone. By the way, did you know that in certain African countries where polygamy is legal, polygamists are not allowed to join the church until they get rid of the extra wives? Interesting. That indicates to me that it is not simply the law that is preventing a reinstitution of polygamy in our church.
Comment by Caroline — February 27, 2006 @ 10:27 am
Manaen - not sure if we’re talking about the same culture here, because someone like Samantha’s character on “Sex in the City”, who has multiple partners, is hardly portrayed as “downtrodden”. That said, “downtrodden” may have been a correct characterization in the past - because women weren’t supposed to enjoy sex - and multiple sexual partners usually signified that the woman was in a situation she couldn’t control (i.e., prostitution).
I think the cultural distinction between men and women in this regard is still that women who have had multiple sex partners are, even after the “sexual revolution”, typically given negative labels (sluts, whores), while men who have had multiple sex partners are admired for their sexual prowess (although men, too, have some limits on their numbers before falling into the “sleazy” category).
So, given these differences between acceptable numbers of sexual partners for men and women, it seems to me that polygyny fits into these expectations nicely. Men are allowed to sleep with multiple partners, while a women’s “virtue” is preserved by sleeping with only one.
Comment by Elisabeth — February 27, 2006 @ 10:37 am
Jack,
In the introduction to Women and Authority there is this quote…
Emma Smith, responding to an 1842 letter from her husband and his associates which warned women against contrary preaching and practices, exhorted sisters to pursue monogamy and denounce polygamy. Eliza R. Snow recorded that Emma ended her comments claiming, “If there ever were any authority on this earth, she [Emma] had it—and had it yet.”
I think our polygamous grandmothers are cheering us on.
Comment by pellar — February 27, 2006 @ 10:38 am
Ok, starting at the beginning…
Jon:
For the sake of keeping the reasonging to one thread, I am going to make the base assumtion that the marriages of which I speak are all healthy, loving, and composed of consenting individuals who celebrate their life and love together.
Inherently unhealthy: I think not. By virtue of fractions, a wife would naturally receive less of her husband’s time than she would if it were just the two of them, and therefore she would need to be stronger in herself, of course, but I see that as quite healthy.
Codifies male dominance: On the narrative level, no the idea itself simply does not, not anymore than current marriage implies the husband over his wife (which I do not believe it does); that is entirely in what people could read into it. On the speculative level, it would depend on the wording of the revelation. On the comic level, if he had a wife or two like me, it’d take a heck of a man to ‘dominate’ us! I’m sure it’d be easier just to love us. Not everything in life is a power play, y’know? If it is for you, then that is your way, but you must understand that such interpretations are not inherent in human relationships, and that’s all polygyny is, a handful of human relationships.
at an equal level: I see this a lot in feminist circles. We’re not talking about public education here. Separate but equal is not a fallacy in a celestial perspective. Men and women are different; thus the need for having two terms (”men” & “women”) Differences among the sexes and their respective lots in this brief life does not carry any of the extreme responses that I have seen modeled here again and again. The whole “No fair!” idea just baffles me. Things do not have to be exactly equal (exactly the same) to be fair. For them to be different does not, in any way, imply more or less love for either gender, as so many people seem to read in to it. Differences are not good, bad, right, or wrong. They just are. They imply no rank or portion of more or less love.
To everyone: Ok, one response down. Today is my first day of homeschooling, and so I will not be on until this afternoon at the soonest. I look forward sincerely to continuing this dialogue with all of you. Your feedback and response is much appreciated, and has already further refined my thoughts on this and other gender relations issues. *gratitude*
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:44 am
pellar,
I side with BY on that one.
Comment by Jack — February 27, 2006 @ 11:12 am
I apologise for my inappropriate comments, I look forward to observing the discussion.
Comment by Eric — February 27, 2006 @ 11:13 am
I think understanding the history of polygamy brings the practice into a new light, since there are some wierd things surrounding it. First of all, Joseph Smith practiced it in secret with the knowlege of only a few friends NOT church counselors. In fact Oliver Cowdary, the next in line for president, had no idea and when he found out and disagreed he was then excommunicated. Also, the practice was never voted on and accepted officially by leaders or by a vote of the members. Joseph Smith, vehemenantly DENIED practicing polygamy. He also went completely against his own supposed doctrine by marrying without consent of Emma and marrying non-virging or married women. There was one year he married some 15 wives and then toward the end of his life he stopped and it being rummored that it was “getting out of hand”. Section 132 was entered several years after Joseph died by Brigham Young, a big proponent of the practice. The former section 101 that stated “one man shall have but one woman and one woman one man” was not taken out until 1870 (I think to justify polygamy).
And if you read Jacob carefully. He condems the practices of Abraham as being abominations, exhorting them to not do “as those of old”, and yet 132 says the opposite.
Anyway this is getting too long. My point is that maybe there was a purpose for polygamy, but then again maybe there was not. As someone said before, HF allows us to err in his name.
Comment by pellar — February 27, 2006 @ 11:16 am
In section 132 it talks about polygamy as an eternal principle. I personally abhore it, when I read section 132 I get a sick feeling. I don’t believe that is was from God. Bringing glory to one man by belonging to a harem of wives bearing hundreds of children is not my idea of eternal bliss. I guess I am Terrestrial material.
Comment by Jane — February 27, 2006 @ 11:25 am
In a world where men just didn’t do housework or childcare having another woman nearby to help with your children could be immensely liberating. One wife may say, “I’ll watch *all* of our kids,” while another one may say “I’ll do *all* of our laundry” while yet another might say “I’ll cook dinner for *all* of us.”
This sort of set up may have allowed these women to have more leisure time to learn and pursue their own interests. And while I will concede that romantic loves was often involved in marriage back then, marriage was still much more of an economic set up than anything. The value we place on romantic love today just doesn’t jive with the things that made polygyny a good deal for those women. And the modern conveniences we enjoy make the idea of having another woman nearby not helpful, but invasive. (Think live-in mother-in-law…) In short, I can see it being good for that time, but I don’t see it being anything but trouble in today’s world.
Comment by Starfoxy — February 27, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Jack, Can you explain why you are on a feminist website? Do you poach? –An honest inquiry
Comment by pellar — February 27, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Naiah,
the dotrine offends my sensibilties because it says women only need a fraction of a partner, and I believe that marriage is a celestial project of two people coming together in unity in every way until they are one force of creation and power and Godhood.
Temporally, polygamy says men are necesary as sperm and paychecks, but not in daily life as parents or spouses
Comment by cchrissyy — February 27, 2006 @ 11:42 am
I’ve never posted here before, but I wanted to add another perspective. It seems to me that the discussion on polygamy is rather straightforward and simple and that we complicate it unnecessarily. Polygamy was necessary and required for some Latter-day Saints in the 19th century. There were negative effects and some positive effects. Now, it is no longer required and Church members who practice it are committing adultery and will be excommunicated if they continue. Will it be required in the future? Perhaps, but there are many things that may be required in the future (paying higher tithing than 10 percent, moving to Missouri, five years of food storage and on and on) but we don’t discuss these issues because we can’t predict the future, and it’s a waste of time to try. So, why do we waste so much time on the possible future practice of polygamy?
It’s worth mentioning that all of this speculation and defense of polygamy is misleading to Church members with fragile testimonies. I know Church members who spend a lot of time defending polygamy and saying they will have to practice it in the future and that most other Church members will have to practice it as well. Really? Based on what evidence? I don’t recall any conference talk where we are told to prepare ourselves for practicing polygamy in the future. In fact, all of the current doctrine indicates the exact opposite, that polygamy is not in the cards. Every time a Church member starts such speculation they are potentially turning away people from the Church with false discussions that do not conform with current doctrine.
Comment by Geoff B — February 27, 2006 @ 11:48 am
Pellar #22 - I read all of the things you quoted, in Mormon Enigma when we did it at FMH book club.
It solidified my disgust with polygamy. The fact that Joseph kept it from Emma for years, and then blackmailed her to accept it (she couldn’t receive her endowmnet or be sealed to him unless she did), makes me think it was a massive mistake (and according to some sources Joseph said it was)
Comment by Rebecca — February 27, 2006 @ 11:54 am
I sort of agree with this post. I don’t know about whether it is good or bad, but if the Lord reinstated the practice, I don’t think I’d have that hard a time with it. IF I got along with my “sister wife(s)”. In fact, I was joking with my DH about this just the other day… what would be the process of getting a second wife into the family? Would we all three go on “dates” together?
“Hey, you wanna go to the movies with me… and my wife?”
Comment by Bee — February 27, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Naiah–I agree pretty much with your conclusions.
The way I see it, most people don’t have a problem with a man remarrying after his wife dies. What do they think is going to happen in the eternities? One of the wives gets the shaft so the man remains monogamous? Polygyny on earth just seems an extention of that. It’s probably a lot harder in practice, but things always are on earth.
I personally like the idea of sister wives. Of course, I don’t really have any close friends, and there are alternatives.
We don’t love any of our children less for having more of them. Some children need more of our time and attention at different points in their lives. Not that wives are analogous to children or dependant…just that the capability is there.
Comment by Euphrasie — February 27, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
I have a problem with it, DH has a problem with it, and most people I’ve talked with about it have considered it and most of them are, at least, uncomfortable with it.
What do I think will happen in the eternties? A reshuffling of sorts, not exactly the shaft (the shaft, to me, is getting stuck with polygamy), and I leave it to God and the parties involved to sort that out. Personally, I think it’ll work out one-to-one and that everyone will be perfectly happy with that. I know I will.
Comment by Artemis — February 27, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Very interesting discussion. It’s been my experience in asking women about their feelings on polygamy/polygyny that the women who have said they accept it are already secure in their marriage as ‘the first wife’. I have yet to hear of a single woman who would accept being number 2, etc.
My dad is a widower and my mother and step mother are both sealed to him. However, my step-mom has deeply struggled with it and my mom was never given the chance to ‘approve’ of it. As I understand it, the first wife was supposed to approve of it…and I doubt very much that my mother would have.
We just don’t know what Heaven will be like. As a single woman, I can tell you the thought of being anything other than one-wife,one-man for eternity makes me sick to my stomach. It makes me feel less valued, less loved, less everything…and I don’t believe HF wants His daughters to feel that way.
I just don’t see the need for polygamy in Heaven. A couple has all of eternity to co-create spirits, assuming they even make it that far…so, why would there be a need for more than one wife? I just don’t buy it. And, I don’t buy the comments that there will be more women in Heaven. No one knows! That’s just a way of justifying a practice that in my opinion, is an earthly practice, but not a Heavenly one.
I don’t even see the need for it in the early days of the Church. It’s not like there was a need to raise up children (as in the days of Abraham)…and many of the extra wives were older than child bearing age. I believe because Joseph asked about, the Lord then tested Joseph’s faith by requiring it. That Joseph’s test of obedience also required the testing of unfortunate women, certainly does not seem fair. But life isn’t fair. I’m just glad I wasn’t living when it was required.
Comment by Julz — February 27, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
In a world where men just didn’t do housework or childcare having another woman nearby to help with your children could be immensely liberating. One wife may say, “I’ll watch *all* of our kids,” while another one may say “I’ll do *all* of our laundry” while yet another might say “I’ll cook dinner for *all* of us.”
This sort of set up may have allowed these women to have more leisure time to learn and pursue their own interests.
Which is why the first doctors in Utah were polygamist wives, as were the first artists — sent East to study by their sister-wives.
Interesting.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — February 27, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Amen Geoff B….the focus of CURRENT doctrine is all that matters. If a living prophet doesn’t think it’s doctrine, and the BoM (the “most correct” and true book) states emphatically that polygamy is wrong, what is this thread defending? Sec 132? That’s referencing a law that has been abolished.
Comment by Kanga — February 27, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
Artemis, I’m with you. I have a major problem with the idea of me dying and my husband remarrying for eternity. In fact, before we got married, I had him make a solemn vow that he would not remarry in the temple if I died. (Unless I appeared to him in a vision and told him it was ok. NOT going to happen.)
Julz, I have similar feelings about polygamy in heaven. As for polygamy in JS’s time…. I’m keeping the door open. I am willing to believe that God did require it for a short time as the exception to the rule (though it’s hard for me to rationalize God requiring something that lead to so much unhappiness). But I’m also willing to believe it was one big huge humdinger of a mistake. That JS just got his wires crossed in a tragic and horrible way.
Comment by Caroline — February 27, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
I agree with you pretty much, Naiah. Nice summing-up!
Haven’t got much else to say right now, no time, but have fun with your first day of homeschooling! As another homeschooler, I’d be interested in your thoughts about that too…
Comment by dangermom — February 27, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
Though I don’t condone it, I understand it’s purpose, but some of you seem to be missing the point of polyomy, it is for repopulation. That is it’’s purpose in the church. If one women had multiple husbands she could still only have one baby perman at a time, but when a man has more than one wife thats 2 baby’s perman. You see? And on the subject of it getting reinstated it will happen when it happens, and if you get called upon to do it you still have a choice just like any other calling. If you feel that you are not up to the task than you aren’t required to do it. God won’t give us a task unless he thinks we can do it, but that doesn’t mean you have to take. If you aren’t comfortable with it don’t ever do it. If you look back when the church was still practicing people were called to these positions and if one of the people in that relationship, be it husband, wife, or child was not comfortable with the idea it was not done in that home. They turned down the calling and no more was said about it. Don’t just do it. If you accept it and agree to new wife being uncomfortable or doubting, and they get married and start going the steps that polyogomy is designed for and you get gelous it just becomes a whole big mess. I am not saying this will happen to everyone or even most people but I am saying that before you agree to this, pray about it, pray about it long and hard, and if you still don’t feel comfortable with it then don’t do it. One of the worst things that can happen is to agree to being part of a plural marriage and then have it turn into a storm of disaster,gelousiy,sorrow,etc.
Also on the subject of it in the churches past they don’t sweep it under the rug. They aren’t proud of it, which is one reason why it is not disscussed all the time. It is a hard subject to disscuss. Also, if they did talk about it all the time alot of women and everyone else in the world would think that all the men in the church are a bunch of horn dogs waiting for there chance at it when that is simply not the case!
“One reason polygamy may be compatible with feminism, is that feminism empowers women to take responsibility for their own destiny and make their own choices, and so women should be free to make their own choices to engage in any kind of sexual arrangement/relationship. As long as women are free to choose to enter into polygamous relationships, then feminism doesn’t have much to say about these relationships.”
Thank you Elizabeth.
This is one of the major points I am trying to get across, is that you do have a choice, you always have. Some women may have been put in a bad or awkward position to accept it but that isn’t the case for most. And what makes anyone here think that men have it easy all the time. they get put in bad or awkward positions too. Would like to be the man who comes home to his wife that he chose to be partners with forever and all eternitry, with just you ever on his mind and say,”Um, Hi hun, I just got done talking to the Stake President and he says he recieved a calling from God that I would be a good canidate for polygomy.”
That would tare him apart. THat is why it is not a highly disscussed subject.
Also I saw a complaint about why doesn’t the chuch fight the law on polygomy if we accept to practice it some time in the future, maybe the feel that God will make things ready when the times comes.
One thing i am not sure about is temple and eternal marriage. I have always thought that it was for one man and one women. In unisen. That is the thing that gets me. If it is what happens to all the other wives and if it isn’t then my heart will always have a piece of it missing, it always hurt me to think of people with someone of there own, not even in heaven.
Comment by Suzanne — February 27, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Suzanne - if this is the case then how do you explain that despite having 32 (approx) wives while living, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith fathered children with anyone other than Emma??
Comment by Rebecca — February 27, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Thanks for an honest post.
But with Julz, I wonder how the situation looks from the other side. What if your husband doesn’t make it, and God gives you as wife #50 to some other man? Will you still welcome the situation? I’m genuinely curious.
Comment by Kiskilili — February 27, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
Kiskilili,
I have no desire to be wife #2,#50 or anything other than the only wife. If I marry someone who doesn’t make it to Heaven, then I’ll remain single. If I’ve made it this long, an eternity is nothing
Besides, that will give me more time to increase in knowledge and wisdom.
I have a question for everyone though: Is it true that women are now allowed to be sealed to more than one husband?
Also: In Joseph’s day, I thought it was taught that having a man and woman sealed together was the point, not bearing children. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the church promote sealing all of us single people to anyone, just to get sealed?
Hope that makes sense!
Comment by Julz — February 27, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
A man and woman marry in the Temple.
One year later, the woman dies.
Four years later, the man re-marries a woman in the Temple. They proceed to have 10 kids, serve 3 missions together, have a bazillion grandkids, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Who do you think that man will be with in the eternities?
Now, what about the first woman?
I like the idea that she will find some spirit that died in WWII or the Civil War that had never been married before and so in the end, that first woman will be sealed to the man she wants, and therefore, polygamy won’t be necessary.
There’s my take on that…not very “Intelligent”, I know.
I find it interesting that everyone is quoting from books they’ve read, but nobody has made mention about there very own relatives. Or from diaries from those pioneers that actually practiced polygamy. I would be interested to hear about those who went through it from their own hand –not some historian’s take on what they thought.
That said, my great-great-grandmother was a second wife. She lived next door to the “first” wife and between them there was about 14 children. When my Gr-gr-Grandfather died, the First wife took my gr-gr-grandma in and made sure she was taken care of financially. No where in her history does it say she was mistreated, that she hated polygamy, or that she regretted it. And no, that’s not because of some big mysterious hidden agenda that somehow they had to PRETEND that polygamy was so evil. They truly believed in it, and so they practiced it.
But NOT EVERYONE DID. Only a small percentage of the Church even practiced polygamy. And those in the small percentage had to have permission from the Church. The men had to be financially and spiritually able to do so.
Anyways, why worry about these things? Why worry about what we, as members of the Church (this is not a democracy –it really isn’t –but that’s an argument for another day) have no control over? Polygamy in the Eternities? WHO KNOWS!??!?!
Frankly, who cares?
Comment by anonymous — February 27, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Naiah wrote:
This reminds me of a discussion I had with a Muslim friend where he was defending the veil as something positive and empowering for women. That veiling her would lead to her being taken seriously in business and politics and any other work she might chose to pursue. I especially remember one of his comments: that “if you put a woman in a bikini and put her on a speaker’s platform, no one will hear a word she says. But if you put a woman in a hijab, the men will listen to every word.”
Well, aside from the fact that there are other clothing options than just the bikini and the buqa, there is another huge problem with his argument: i.e. there are many, many societies that require women to veil, and none of them show any signs of this liberation he so confidently predicted.
There are many, many societies that have tried polygamy. Most of them are apallingly oppressive towards women. Women bought like cattle. Women caged in harems for the rest of their lives. It’s overall a pretty ugly track record. I’ll agree that the LDS people probably got closer to some sort of feminist ideal than any other, but only for a very short time and for a very, very small minority of the population. [Yes, there were polygamous wives who became doctors and artists. But, they were a tiny minority.]
Also, I’d be worried about what happens to women over time in a culture that endorses polygamy. It’s one thing to chose outside the mainstream, while that mainstream still allows for liberal western traditions. It’d be another [I think] should polygamy become mainstream in a society. When women are expected to live this way.
My friend’s enthusiasm for the veil probably did have some basis in reality — the reality of 1000 years ago. There were women scholars in the Golden age of Islam. But they didn’t last very long, and the veil of liberation became the veil of modesty became the veil of oppression became the Taliban. I have a hard time believing that widespread religiously required polygamy wouldn’t also follow the same sorry path — and the polygamy of liberation would eventually become the polygamy of limited choices and opression and abuse.
N.O.
Comment by not ophelia — February 27, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Ophelia,
It is amazing to me how creative we humans can be when trying to justify our ideologies.
I can’t take men seriously, so maybe if they started veiling their faces, I could look at them without being distracted by their looks. Oh wait, I could still see their other qualities
Comment by Julz — February 27, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
I always take comfort in being married to an academic with no swimmers. I think if the reasons for polygamy are financial or reproductive, there’s a pretty good chance that I’ll never have to share.
Anonymous looking for family polygamy stories: I’m descended from Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a midwife in the days of the early Church. In her middle years,. her husband took a much-younger wife, Harriet. When the Saints went West, Harriet threw a tantrum. David stayed with her and Patty went on alone. Talk about a heartbreaker! Patty remarried after settling in Bountiful and wrote on this occasion of her gratitude that she had someone to chop her wood for her.
Patty’s son, Perregrine (spellings vary on this name) had seven wives. I’m descended form the sixth, Sarah Crossley. Sarah had been taught the gospel by Perregrine in England when she was a little girl, then rescued by him at Rocky Ridge. That’s the Mormon fairy tale I grew up with — happily ever after! Really, although I don’t know of a firsthand account from Sarah, I do have reminiscences by her granddaughter, my great-grandmother Alice, about how well the sister wives in this family got along and took care of each other.
There are other polygamous families in my ancestry, but these two are the stories I know best. And I think they illustrate the best and almost the worst cases possible.
Comment by Ana — February 27, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Polygamy sounds like hell and I really do think it was for a lot of women. I decsend from polygamy myself and look at the whole thing as a SACRIFICE and an example of faith(or misfortune) far beyond my own level of endurance. One of my ancestors lived as a plural wife in poverty- by herself, with her children. She did not even live with the other wives in one of those glorified, freeing sisterhoods some of you are discussing. Just as some abuse their monogomous marriages today, people abused their polygomous relationships.
It is such a strange, baffling paradigm. “Thou shall not kill. . . except when. . . ” “Thou shall not commit adultry. . . except when. . .” It seems that some parts of our relationship with Heavenly Father are just as ambigious and confounding as our relationships here on earth. Does Heavenly Father wants us to develop critical thinking skills- to really CONSIDER who we are beyond the conundrums, beyond the confusion? Peace without the answer? Progression without the results we desire?
My relationship with my husband is so intimate, so dear to me, that the thought of even former girlfriends makes me tired. And I hate to think that our devotion and love is all there for a foundation for him to have more marriages-creepy!
And as for polygamy being a setting for one fantastic sisterhood- OH HELL! I’d much rather have girls nights out than girls nights in. Honestly, I would feel devalued to not be the sole matriarch, sole mother in my nuclear, beautiful, three-person family. I think that the women who were involved in polygamy only generations ago sacrificed greatly, showing faith beyond my own.
Comment by janae — February 27, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
Ana, we’re cousins! My husband is descended from Perrigrine Sessions as well. But he’s from Mary Call, wife 2 or 3. I was very impressed when he told me that news (”You’re descended from Patty Sessions? Cool!”). I don’t know if you’ve seen this autobiographical sketch by Sarah Crossley?
However I have no pioneer ancestors myself and thus no family diaries/experiences.
N.O., it’s true that only a tiny minority of polygamous women became doctors and artists and writers. But how many ordinary American women became those things back then? How have any women, monogamous or polygamous, been treated in most of the world through most of history? I think when contrasted with the rest of history, Mormon polygamy stands up pretty well.
Comment by dangermom — February 27, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
Thanks for the post Naiah. I like your take on this subject.
Comment by Katreena — February 27, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Anonymous #41-
My mother has the journal of one of my great-great grandmothers who was a first wife in a polygamist family. She was very unhappy. The subsequent wives were not of her choosing and they did not get along at all. Her husband was not exactly understanding. In fact, when she found out that he was taking more wives, she was livid. He obviously did it anyway. I believe the reason she didn’t leave is the fact that she couldn’t make it economically as she had small children and they were in the midst of a cross country migration. In the end, she had to make the best of it, but she was NEVER happy about the arrangement.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that, even though it may be for the best intentions, polygynous societies tend to be on the male dominant to the extreme side. I have heard of the isolated case where most parties are happy with the arrangement, but I can’t imagine that an entire society would work well.
I live in southern Utah very near the “twin cities” (that is Hildale and Colorado City) where the FLDS are centered for now. I have worked in Hildale in an official capacity most notably when the whole Warren Jeffs excommunications occurred. I have never seen such oppression of an entire community. Women have no status. Young boys are being run out on a rail. Laws are being flouted and no one can seem to get a grip on it. Even the men can have their families taken and reallotted to other “more worthy” men. They are taught that the only way to the CK is to be given 3 or more wives. The “prophet” is the giver of the wives and many of the couples (?) don’t meet until the wedding. They do not speak to outsiders if they do not have to. They believe this community is the way JS and BY meant the gospel to be lived. As I look at the way they live, I ask myself if that is really the intention of section 132, the Law of Consecration, etc. How could that possibly be? It is completely against all I honestly believe in. How could HF condone that? Is that what would have happened to the Saints if OD1 had not been given? My heart hurts just thinking about it…
Comment by Ex cop mom — February 27, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Well, this conversation seems to be going in the direction of “I hate polygamy”, but I think Naiah raises some interesting questions in her post about the compatibility of polygamy with feminism. No matter which brand of feminism you subscribe to, it seems to me that a central tenet of feminism is that women and men are equal, and should be treated equally. So, therefore, I’m not sure how one can be a “polygafeminist”, because feminism (women and men are equal) ultimately cannot be squared with polygyny (one man, many women).
And this is why, despite my libertarian leanings, I don’t support the legalization of polygynous relationships. As Not Ophelia points out in her comment, institutionalized polygamy is typically extremely harmful to women. And I think the expectation of harmony among “sister/wives” is incredibly unrealistic.
I tend to think of polygynous relationships like slavery - I’m sure there are people who would freely choose to be sold into slavery, but we have decided as a society that the benefits of one person owning another person are not sufficient to outweigh the costs. Likewise, any benefits of polygyny are significantly outweighed by its harmful effects on both men and women.
Comment by Elisabeth — February 27, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Elisabeth:
Amen.
Comment by Ronan — February 27, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
So when my aunt died of lung cancer, my other aunt, her sister begged my uncle, her husband, to have her (the dead aunt ) sealed to him. The deseaced aunts widow husband, remarried in only 2 months and then abandoned his grown children to be with the new wife. My aunt (living) wanted her sister to be able to recieve the blessings of eternity, by being sealed to a man my aunt (living) knew was worthy, that being my uncle (a bishop and amazing man).
When I heard about this it made me weep. Not tears of sorrow, but tears of joy. And I gained an immediate testimony of polygamy as an eternal principle.
And what about me? I come from an old Mormon family. There are multiple wives in my history. If it does not exist in the CK who am I sealed to? What father is my heart supposed to turn to?
We are taught specifically that what is sealed here on earth remains sealed in the eternitys. If there are exceptions to that rule what does that mean to my sealing to my husband now? I much prefer to think that what is sealed is sealed. period. stop. the end.
Otherwise where does that leave us whose father was sealed to multiple women (after one has died)? Am I not going to be sealed to a father that I know and Love because his sealing to another wife and their subsequent children was deemed more valid somehow? That would be super lame.
Jealousy, and anger, and selfishness are hopefully not feelings that we experience in the CK. Neither is pride, dominanation, or abuse. Those are the nessasary components of an unhealthy polygamous marriage.
Comment by kristi — February 27, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
Question
There are two possible sources of our dislike of polygamy:
1. The “light of Christ” and our own inherent moral compass cry out against it.
2. We’ve been raised to dislike it. It has nothing to do with morality. It’s simply a matter of predjudice and American societal baggage.
So which is it?
And how am I to know that you are truly being objective in your answer?
Comment by Seth R. — February 27, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
Consider also that not all God’s commandments are inherently moral commandments.
Are the marriage particulars really “moral commandments” or were they simply the “right arrangement for that time and situation, but not necessarily cosmically right or wrong?”
Comment by Seth R. — February 27, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
In question to #51 and #52
How can we be truly objective? We are products of our own culture. What may be abhorent to one may be perfectly normal for another (FGM?). Frankly, until I have an answer from God one way or another my societal baggage is my only perspective, as I believe it is for most people. Do you think the “Light of Christ” is really going to cry out against polygyny when it is something for which we may someday be called upon to bear testimony? Not that I think the church will ever be called upon to practice the principle again, but we can’t discount that it was a part of our religion, right or wrong.
Comment by Ex cop mom — February 27, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Wow! Reading through all of these, there are some *awesome* points for discussion being brought up. I’m going to ruminate on them and the best way to address them. I think I’ll go through all the comments and correlate issues and address them systematically–some in comments here and a few I think really are worth our further, more in-depth exploration and perhaps deserve posts of their own. (I am really fascinated with the perception of different vs same/fair vs equal aspect of our gender roles in this life that everyone keeps touching on).
On a personal note, thank-you so much to everyone who has felt to chime in on this topic. I was sincerely afraid of ‘kicking the hornets’ nest,’ so to speak, but I wanted to come on with a bang. The fantastically cooperative disagreement that we have going here is beautiful! It brings our differences to light without alientating anyone (and possibly cutting us off from their added perspective). Theses+antitheses=richer, deeper syntheses for everyone! Wahoo!
Comment by Naiah Earhart — February 27, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
The A&E network had an interesting documentary about polygamy over the weekend, I recommend you watch it if it replays again. It examined three or four different polygamists groups each of them very different. One group sounded like the group Ex cop mom described, people were trying to escape, women were beaten, etc. Another was a man in his 50’s with two wives who was getting ready to take a third(you need three or more to go to the celestial kingdom). One of the wives seemed very happy, she had actually suggested the third, one didn’t talk too much, her eyes seemed sad to me. The third was what my wife called the “cute old polygamists”. It was one guy with seven or eight wives, both he and the wives were all over the age of 70. They all seemed very happy (although it freaked me out a little when one of the wives talked about asking permission to go somewhere).
It really made me think that polygamy could work, but only if the wives made all the sacrifices. I can’t imagine enjoying it in any situation, How do you have a real relationship with your children and wives when you may go days at a time without talking to them? Also, other than the cute old polygamists, all the men were creepy looking. I don’t know if anyone has ever seen a mugshot of a pedophile or rapist, but these men had those same creepy eyes.
Check it out if it happens to come on again, it was very great.
Comment by jjohnsen — February 27, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
“I’m not about to pack my bags for Texas”
Hey!
Re #7: I don’t think it fair to recommend _ISL_ to disabuse NE. While I enjoyed that book, it hardly portrays ‘normal polygamy’ in that all of the women were ’secret’ wives and then almost all were taken on as ‘levirate’ wives by men who had dozens of wives. Hardly a representative scenario.
Guy, did you mean to imply that the AoF aren’t scripture?
Elisabeth, Slate recently did an article stating that one of the advantages of polygamy for women is that it creates a bride shortage. When women are in high demand, they can call the shots. This becomes an incentive for a man to treat his current wives extremely well since he is unlikely to get more if he doesn’t. (And BY was very liberal in granting women divorces, which means that any woman who didn’t like her situation could [fairly] easily get herself set up in another family.) Further, the reality of Utah polygamy was that it meant that some women could do things like go to medical school because other women could watch their children. Another possible benefit is that the women could, to put it bluntly, ‘gang up’ on their husband and ‘outvote’ him. These are all possible feminist advantages.
That said . . . I think, Naiah, you are way overstating your case for the eternal nature of polygamy and the benefits of it. Most of my objections to your position have already been made, but I’d just add that there is no ’smoking gun’ that clarifies that there will be polygamy in the eternities. I sincerely believe that it will not be required in the hereafter. I can’t prove it to you, but I do believe it.
Comment by Julie in Austin — February 27, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
Interesting insight, Naiah. I’ve had a few conversations with feminist friends, where they have suggested that polygamy might be acceptable. However, I don’t think any of them believe one-way-street polygamy would be acceptable from a feminist perspective.
In a world in which both male-female and female-male polygamy is permissible, it adds choices for women, and could be a net gain. It opens up the door to uneven relationships, of course, but then again, monogamy also opens up the door to unequal relationships.
Elisabeth (49) - it is interesting that you equate polygamy with slavery. The two concepts were closely linked in the political dialogue of the mid nineteenth century - the “twin relics of barbarism” of which a civilized society would have nothing.
Your statement that “any benefits of polygyny are significantly outweighed by its harmful effects on both men and women” reminds me of Nozick’s classic formulation about whether a person should be allowed to sell herself willingly into slavery - basically, that while the freedom to contract ought to generally be honored (Nozick was a big proponent of this), that a voluntary self-sale into slavery should be viewed as evidence of lack of mental capacity to make such a contract.
Would you say that the same reasoning applies to women and polygyny? That any women who would voluntary enter into such an arrangement should be presumed as lacking capacity to do so? Is this presumption rebuttable?
Not Ophelia,
You’re right, of course, that most polygamous societies have treated women appallingly. On the other hand, it seems theoretically possible to have polygamy in an enlightened, progressive society that respects women’s rights. In fact, polygamy in such a society would almost certainly be a benefit for women, by allowing them greater market power to choose a spouse. (Cf. the recent Slate piece on this, at http://www.slate.com/id/2136453/ ).
Comment by Kaimi — February 27, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Shoot - Julie beat me to the punch on the Slate piece. We were composing comments at the same time - hers wasn’t up when I started mine, and I came in a few minutes behind her. Also, I’m a man, so I don’t think as fast or as well as she does.
Comment by Kaimi — February 27, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
Re: Guy W. Murray’s #5 (yes, all the way back up there)
The second point in that comment argues against Naiah’s position that OD-1 is an extension of the 12th Article of Faith.
It’s my understanding that The Pearl of Great Price is part of canonized scripture for the LDS Church. As a part of that book of scripture, it follows that the Articles of Faith (including the twelfth) have the ‘force and effect of scripture’.
If so Guy’s dismissal on the basis of canon/not canon lacks validity.
Comment by Téa — February 27, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
Don’t worry, Kaimi, she beat me to the AoF punch too.
Comment by Téa — February 27, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
The Slate article was interesting - thanks for the referral. Even so, I’m not convinced that the status of women has progressed far enough so that females have bargaining power equal to males in structuring alternative sexual relationships. Seems to me that women are more likely to get the short end of the stick, so to speak, in polygamous relationships because, typically, the women are financially dependent upon men, and have fewer options for independence. Shortage or no shortage. Therefore, I tentatively agree with Nozick that polygynous relationships should remain illegal (although not necessarily for the reasons Kaimi states).
And I’m not sure I find the idea of women being able to pursue careers while other women take care of the children that convincing an argument in favor of polygyny. Seems to me that this arrangement would create significant domestic discord between the wives who stay at home (full time babysitters?) and the wives who pursue careers. Do the women who work outside the home have any responsibility to help with the housework after they come home from work? How is the income shared? What are their responsibilities to their own children vs. the children of their sister/wives? Perhaps these issues could all be worked out amicably, but it’s difficult to see how polygyny would work in practice effectively given competing interests and priorities.
Quick clarification - my comments above referred to institutionalized polygamy where men are allowed to take more than one wife (polygyny).
Comment by Elisabeth — February 27, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
Euphrasie:
I meant to address this earlier by why does this sort of logic only apply to polygyny and is never used to justify polyandry? I know of many more young widows than I do young widowers. The idea that a woman can marry a second man but not be allowed to be sealed to him bothers me greatly. Especially in one case I know where the husband died while his wife was pregnant with their first child after a only year of marriage. Is it fair to ask her to not spend the rest of her life with a person who she might want as an additional eternal companion? How is it fair that this can only be a one way street?
Comment by Starfoxy — February 27, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Dangermom: cool! Thank you for the link. Looks like I need to correct some details in the way I remember the story. And from now on, I call you Coz!
Comment by Ana — February 27, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
Okay, one more thought…
As to polygyny in the eternities, how do you feel about the idea of Heavenly Mother and her sister-wives who we could also call Heavenly Mothers?
Comment by Ex cop mom — February 27, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
Here is another perspective from me, the never-married adult female. Most of my life I have been taught that marriage and family are the greatest blessings anyone can be given. So, if that’s true, then I must be a complete failure…otherwise, why aren’t I deserving of the same blessing. Did I do something wrong in the pre-existence or is it just bad luck here in mortality?
I have also been taught that HF will make up the blessings in the afterlife for those people who did not receive them. In my mind, logical or not, ‘giving’ me to a man as anything other than his only wife, is NOT the way to make up for the lack of that blessing in mortality.
I refuse to believe that I am less deserving of a one-on-one intimate relationship with my soul mate just because of dumb-luck in mortality.
Comment by Julz — February 27, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
Kaimi -
I’m not sure I’d agree that women who desired to enter into polygynous relationships lacked the mental capacity to do so voluntarily. Many women do voluntarily choose to become involved with men who are unavailable for long-term commitments (not necessarily marriage). Do you think Nozick’s reasoning of mental incompetence extends to women who choose to become involved with married men, and that all such affairs between married men and single women (or women married to other men) are essentially rape?
I think it’s more that the negative externalities associated with polygynous relationships are akin to slavery, selling one’s own internal organs, and baby brokering. In all these instances, people may be “voluntarily” deciding to enter into a particular relationship or consummate a particular transaction, but the financial and gender inequities inherent in our society make such arrangements abhorrent to the sensibilities of a reasonable person, and as such, are illegal.
Comment by Elisabeth — February 27, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
Interesting post. As a man with
Comment by Blain — February 27, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
Forgive me if someone has said this already (haven’t read the whole thread), but if we want to discuss whether or not polyamy can every coexist with gender parity, don’t we need to stipulate whether or not we’re talking about polygamy in conjuction with patriarchy? Isn’t it that conjuction that significantly complicates Mormon understanding of the issue? I guess in our heads you don’t have the former without the latter?
A good friend of mine grew up in a polygamous family (he’s the son of an African chief in Ghana). He explained that since his dad was a chief over various “suburbs” of the region, he needed a wife from each suburb to keep the peace. Each wife served as a political diplomat–a lot like renaissance political marriages, I suppose. Kwesi did mention that his “aunts” were very independent, strong women whose identities weren’t particularly tied to their husband. I can see how that would work, but NOT in light of the way contemporary Mormonism discusses constitutive identity and the family unit.
Comment by Anon-at-present — February 27, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
Anon-at-present,
Fascinating. It leads to a larger point as well: so much church rhetoric now is about increasing closeness between spouses, while it seems that polygamy would work best when there wsa less emotional closeness. (Or am I wrong?)
Comment by Julie in Austin — February 27, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Julie # 57 . . . .Probably, but that is clearly an ERROR on my part…. mea maxima culpa . . canonized in 1880. What I should have said/written is that OD-1 has more force and effect on the practice of polygamy than does the 12th article of faith, or reading OD1 as simply an extension of the 12th article of faith, which I don’t think it really is. I still belive the 12th article of faith also needs to be read in conjunction w/ D & C 134. Thanks for pointing out this egregious error. What I could possibly have been thinking at 5:40 a.m. when I wrote that is beyond me.
Tea # 60 ditto above.
Comment by Guy Murray — February 27, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
Is the lack of reference to a Heavenly Mother due to the fact that there are actually Heavenly Mothers?
Comment by Gerri — February 27, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
I’ve experienced just about the whole range of emotions regarding polygamy that have already been expressed. One of the negative reactions I’ve had about the practice has to do with not being enough of a husband to multiple wives. I have a hard enough time with one, and I don’t mean that in the “Can you imagine living with two nagging women?” kind of way (I hate that kind of polygamy humor, so please forgive me). I mean it in the “I love these women and cannot give them each all of myself” kind of way. The pain of that would lead me to prefer being one of multiple husbands rather than a man with multiple wives.
This is similar (with obvious differences) to how I felt when going from 2 children to 4. I was very nervous about becoming less of a father to my existing children. I’d like to say that I’ve grown in to the role, but I don’t feel I have. I’m still half the father I was before, at least from the perspective of each child. The positive of the situation is that my children have 3 times as many siblings. I guess that can be good or bad…
I’ve had to share a mother and father with 4 other siblings and now I’m trying to share myself among 4 children. It can be done, but for me that is enough multiplexing. It’s comforting to have a marriage where the relationship is one-on-one with no other complications.
Comment by Matt Jacobsen — February 27, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
No, I think you’re completely off-base with this one.
Sure the wives would make all the sacrifices … if he was a lousy husband and father.
If, on the other hand, he was trying to be a good husband and father, I think the man would suffer just as much as the women. Try doing right by just one woman. Then imagine trying to be fair to four, and balancing the needs of each.
It would take a very impressive man, in terms of organizational skill, diplomacy, empathy, and leadership.
I think Joseph Smith is probably a bad example to use. Joseph was an idealist and a youthful visionary. But he wasn’t very good with finances, and was a little out of his depth on the domestic front. I think it’s pretty clear that he made a fair mess of his attempt at polygamy (it always pained him greatly).
Brigham Young is probably a better example of where polygamy might have gone, if allowed to continue. But realize that polygamy was never allowed to naturally work out its own problems. All we really have are flawed examples of a movement in its infancy.
No societal movement was ever birthed in perfection. It usually took a lot of hard work and trial and error to get rid of the flaws. Polygamy never got the chance. Before it could ever mature as a societal system, it was driven underground, where it festered in isolation, fanaticism, and secrecy. There it took on quite a different character from what Joseph and Brigham (and God, I daresay) intended.
If you want a clearer picture of polygamy, you have to look at the successful models, and not just the abortive ones. See post #69 for one example. You might also look at an interesting book “Dreams of Trespass: Tales of a Harem Girlhood” by Fatima Mernissi. It’s an autobiographical story of a girl, whose mother was a part of a harem.
Contrary to popular portrayal, harems were not always simply legalized sex-slavery. In this particular example, it actually served like a battered-women’s-shelter for women fleeing abusive monogamous husbands.
That’s another thing - whenever criticizing polygamy, it’s only fair to consider how it stacks up to monogamy, which ain’t been no bed of roses either, I remind you.
Comment by Seth R. — February 27, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
Why do we speak of polygamy strictly in the past. Some portion of those polygamous(ly) joined from the pioneer days will likely reach exaltation. If any of us do, these people will be our future peers.
There may never be sanctioned polygamy again, but its not going away. These polygamous people have been through temple sealings that qualify them for the possibility of eternal life. Some of you are likely to live among those who have formed this type of family organization through the eternities. Something to think about.
Comment by SK — February 27, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Oops–the constitutive identy fanatic (#69) is me. I have no idea how come some anonymous moniker wound up on my post. Alas.
And yes, Seth, my friend’s family certainly could qualify as “successful” and the Ghanaian system has worked for centuries. Still, those marriages do not resemble the sort of marriage touted as ideal in the Ensign. They do exactly what they’re supposed to do, and Kwesi would say that everyone was very happy. But then, they started with vastly different expectations for family life. I’m not sure I–raised in a culture obsessed with not only romantic but erotic love–would be able to rebuild my notion of family identity from the ground up. The anthropologist in me (a tiny smidgeon of janet, influenced by an anthro. buddy) is reticent to suggest the superiority of my cultural model just ‘cuz it’s MINE. But then that’s also the model forwarded by the church as ideal. So should we chalk all the family propoganda up to cultural construction rather than revelation?
Goodness, I’m tired.
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
2, Elisabeth:
“are you defining polygamous arrangements where only men are allowed to marry more than one spouse?” I was referring to, specifically, the more commonly practiced polygyny.
“Or are women also allowed to marry more than one husband?”
In the early years of this dispensation, they were, but I do believe that that practice was fairly brief and done away with early on. As for “allowed,” my vision being purely speculative, there is only one answer to that, and that is that it is up to the Lord. In my condieration for writing this entry I was thinking just of the taking of multiple wives, as I mentioned above.
“If it’s the former, how is this inequality compatible with a “feminist” perspective?”
I believe that there is a fundamental difference in a base assumtion between myself and most feminists. i do not see different roles and implicitly carrying or denoting greater or less rank. Men’s lot is men’s lot, and women’s is women’s. To read subordination in to not just polygyny, but any issue wherein men and women have a difference in behavior seems to me to be unnecessary, and quite possibly deliberate sowing of contentious feelings by the adversary meant to distract us and get us to rev our engines instead of magnifying what is actually ours to excel with. If we’re all whimpering over the greener grass on everybody else’s side of the fence, we’re not actively engaged in our own, y’know?
“If polygamy were such a wonderful blessing that we should be preparing to receive” You mistake my point; I am sorry it was not clearer. Sloppy writing; forgive me. I speak in the speculative that IF it were to be reinstated (huge conditional/subjunctive there), I would be ok with it.
My point is that we should be wary of condemning it, as published/codified/cannonized church doctrine does not expressly condemn the practice beyond saying that we not longer engage in it. We need to be careful not to read in more than is there–in either direction (assuming condemnation or tacit, unpracticed belief. All we know ‘officially’ is that we do not practice it anymore. I should have been clearer on the distinction between my view of doctrine and my personal feelings. I will try to be more careful in future.
“it’s an open question as to whether we as Church members believe polygamy is inherently “wrong” or merely “illegal”. The Church needs to clarify this before we criticize our brothers and sisters expressing ambivalence or hostility towards the practice.”
Exactly. Well-said.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
3 Kanga, I would see D&C 132; it’s hardly crystal clear modern english, but worth wading through if this is an issue that troubles you (your firend).
Wives were given and sealed, and the Lord reiterates that those sealings are eternal, and it mentions the prophets before who have had many wives. It does not say that polygamy is eternal in the sense that it is always to be practiced. Quite the contrary, it mentions that it is only to be done with His blessing.
I hope that helps clarify it.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
I might read all the other comments later but I don’t think I dare just now.
Naiah, you don’t shock me in the least — or if you do, it’s because you’re the first woman I’ve met who feels the same way I do! Anything more I say right now would simply re-capitulate your points.
Comment by harpingheather — February 27, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
4 Eric,
“wrong unless God commands it” Practicing it is wrong, no doubt. We are clearly told that the penalty for such is excommunication. We do not have any official word on whether it is “wrong” in the moral sense.
Whether He ever commands it again or not, it is my belief that we should not condemn it too heartily in our words or hearts, as we, too will someday be in the eternities with Joseph and Brigham and Wilford and the rest, y’know?
I do not know if there is anything to admire. (Hahaha, admire my williness to take on a a calling in a nursery of 12+ kids in *tiny* room while some of the boys are having aggression issues more than my lack of a distaste for polygamy!) I have had some life experiences during my years of inactivity that have flavored my synthesis on this score and made it seem not just plausible, but downright sensible to me (with of course the huge caviat that I am a faithful woman and would never presume to say that it should be reinstated; it is pure on an obedience to what we’re commanded level.)
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
Wow, Naiah. You’re planning on individual responses to them all? That’s admirably congenial of you — and it also sounds relatively hopeless with 79 comments and counting.
You may want to try clustering responses, hitting a few themes, answering them with group comments. Or you’ll be here all night, and all day tomorrow.
Of course, my comments are always important enough to deserve an individual reply. Or several replies per comment. But you can generally lump the rest into a single answer. (This allows you to spend more time focusing on my comments).
(If you really want to be efficient, you can just say “meh” to everyone. Steve Evans does this all the time. However, he’s Canadian, so no one really expects anything better from him anyway).
Comment by Kaimi — February 27, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
It would be interesting to see how polygamy would exist in a celestial world. In this world, all parties would enter into it completely willingly. Jealousy and competition would not be factors. There would be a celestial purpose for the unions which everyone understood and all would be working towards this common goal.
Now that…that to me doesn’t sound too bad.
Polygamy in this world and in this framework? Makes me shudder.
I am grateful that I don’t/haven’t so far had to worry about it. I pray that I won’t in the future. I don’t really think that it will come up in my lifetime. And IF I encounter it in the afterlife, well, I’m sure my point of view on a lot of topics will be different then.
(By the by, my great-grandfather and great-great grandfather were both polygamous. From what she told me, my grandmother thoroughly enjoyed her childhood growing up with her 27 siblings (not all in the same house) and never once felt neglected by her father. Her mother (who came from an abusive first marriage to a non-member) and her mother’s sister were both married to the same man and, at least from their perspective, were grateful for their marriages. Whew. Can’t believe I’m so closely removed from the situation, now that I think of it.)
Comment by Anelie — February 27, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
Re #32:
” I have yet to hear of a single woman who would accept being number 2, etc.”
My feelings on the matter haven’t changed. I had no problem with polgyny when I was single and now that I’m married, I don’t fear that another, different, possibly younger wife (or two) would take my husband from me. I know I’d have less of his time but I wouldn’t have less of his heart.
Comment by harpingheather — February 27, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
5 Guy,
It’s all your fault, you know. It all goes back to our initial debate! Before your entry, I’d never thought this much about it–only passingly and in other contexts! No worries, though, it’s been a delightfully yummy idea to wrap my head around for a while.
1. Heh, the reason is the Lord said so, and that’s good enough. As I always say, there are some things that only a celestial perspective will reveal. All we know is that He said to, and that’s probably all we’ll know on that score for the rest of this life.
2. The Articles of Faith are, in fact scripture, as I’m sure you know. By “extension,” I meant a logical (theo-logical…hahaha, I am so funny!) extension, not any actual tied-in administratively offical connection or extension.
3. I agree about the carefully crafted nature of the wording. I believe it is worded such, so as not to demean previous multiple marriage sealings from the past. I do not see it as tacit support of the doctrine, but neither do I see anything in there on any logical basis that would substantiate a use of the FP in an argument against polygamy…as *someone* tried to do.
4. I am sure your wife appreciates your efforts to be a good husband, but it takes no more love to love a second wife than it does a second child. Then again, as some have said “love is infinite; time is not.”
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 9:29 pm
6 Artemis,
As I mentioned to Guy above, all we know is that the Lord said to do it. As to the reasons or logical justifications, there are some things that only a celestial perspective, divested of the veil of this life, will reveal. I would, though, caution you against calling it an “evil,” necessary or not. It is not for us to pass judgement on the Lord’s will, and that is perhaps why we have not had an actual word from the First Presidency condemning the morality of it, even though it is not to be practiced.
Your instinct is in harmony with my reading of the scriptures in regard to ‘the practice,’ completely. It was commanded in only certain circumstances, and even condemned in others. Perhaps my statement of it being “the Lord’s model” was off-base. Consider it retracted. Thank-you.
As to you and your husband, you are certainly not alone in your feelings, and I even once felt the same. I have had some life experience in my years away form the church that has tempered that, though, and it is simply because of that that I am able to be as comfortable with the idea as I am.
As soon as I dig myself out from underneath all these comments (which I am loveing, but there are a LOT of them…), I will certainly check out those essays. Thanks for the pointer!
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
7 pellra (sorry, couldn’t resist),
I have not, but, at some point I will. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
I disagree that the practice in and of itself is demeaning, but I come from a very different base assumption on that score than most people. I do not see different lots in life as inherently better or worse than one another.
I do have some firsthand knowledge in regards to multiple loves. Mind you, I have since resumed my place in the church and would not embark on any such now, but during my years when I was away form the church I did have some experiences that opened my mind–and heart–to see that such a paradigm is quite possible and often quite successful in relationships. I also understand that the vast majority of people in our culture have no such parallel experience. It was hard for me to reshape my monogamous cultural indoctrination. Do not write it off as impossible, though, simply because you have not experienced it. I by no means imply that your opinion is at all invalid, just offer a reminder that your opinion is unique to your own feelings and life experience.
Been there, done that. No false advertising.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
8 fmhLisa,
“On the other hand, I’m a BIG fan of traditional monogamous pair bonds. They’re so morally comfortable. They’re so “in”. Everyone is doing it.”
Brilliant! I am laughing so hard right now I just choked on my pizza!!!! I’ll give that entry a better reading when I finish getting back to everyone on here.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
9 pellar,
I can see that this is actually a very uncomfortable issue for you. My apologies; I did post this knowing that it’d stir things up, but I did not anticipate those for whom it’d be particularly sensitive. No offense intended.
Do you happen to know where I can find a transript of the interview? I would love to read it.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
“Suzanne - if this is the case then how do you explain that despite having 32 (approx) wives while living, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith fathered children with anyone other than Emma??”
There is evidence. Unfortunately I don’t remember precisely which woman it was, but on her deathbed she told her daughter Josephine that Joseph Smith Jr. was her father. It’s in “In Sacred Lonliness.”
Regarding the story mentioned about the husband who married a second wife without his first wife’s consent and then stayed with her when the first wife and the rest of the Saints moved West: You can’t use examples of bad polygynous marriages to refute polygyny. If that were the case you might as well use all the examples of bad monogamous marriages to abolish that institution as well. Marriage is what it is and people are what they are. That he treated her the way he did is just proof that he was a bad husband and he would have wronged her no matter how many wives he had.
As for stories of familial polygny: My great-great-great grandparents converted and left Denmark with 11 people in their family: Dad, Mum and kiddies. One son was lost crossing the Atlantic. A baby was born and buried on the plains. By the time they got to Utah the family was mom, two adult daughters and one pre-teen daughter. The oldest adult daughter (my .paf file with names is awol at the moment) had nearly drowned crossing the Platte River but the wagon master had snaked his whip around her waist and pulled her to safety. They later married, leaving the other three to try to make it in undeveloped, pioneer Utah… this didn’t work too well so the wagon master married the second sister too and they all lived in a family compound.
I’m currently rustling the family tree to see if anyone has letters or diaries from any of those family members.
Comment by harpingheather — February 27, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
10 Jack,
I would still say that it is eternal in the sense that it is a sealing ordinance, and binds one for eternity, but since I wrote the original entry I have reread the scriptures on it, and I see now that the same language is used in regard to sealing in general as well as baptism. So, I was slightly misinformed when I thought that “new and everlasting covenant” referred specifically to plural marriage.
Thank-you for the “Bravo!” That’s always nice to see when posting on a topic you know to be controversial. I am, obviously, ok with it, and thus it is hard to portay it in aught but a positive light, and I wholeheartedly concur in regard to honoring those who went before. We do not know their hearts, and it is not up to us to try to. It simply is not for our judgement.
I think the associations between polygamy and abuse stem primarily from what I tend to call the mispractice of the FLDS. They do practice polygamy, and from what I know, they use it to justify all sorts of mistreatment of their women and even their children. It is important to remember that there is no more abuse inherent in polygamy than there is in monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
“Unfortunately I don’t remember precisely which woman it was, but on her deathbed she told her daughter Josephine that Joseph Smith Jr. was her father. It’s in “In Sacred Lonliness.””
But one (possible) offspring hardly justifies 32 extra wives, no? So it seems that there was something more to JS’s polygamy than increasing offspring.
Comment by Julie in Austin — February 27, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
Kaimi, wanna take bets on how long till NE gives up answering each individual comment?
Comment by Julie in Austin — February 27, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
11 Kanga,
I can see that your feelings run hot on this, and I seriously see your point on the pointlessness of the what-ifs. As I continue to comb through the responses, I have refined my expression of what my point was. (Sometimes I often don’t know what I’m getting at until I write it through several times, but I tend not to give blog entries that kind of time. Eep!)
My point was not the what if, but rather to point out that we have not had it doctrinally given to us that there is anything immoral about the righteous (meaning commanded of God) practice, and therefore we should be careful about reading in to what we have been told (not to practice it) a judgement that has not been given.
I happen to be someone who is not bothered at all by, and even to a degree sympathizes with, polygamy. I was unclear as to where my doctrinal point and my personal feelings met.
The speculative part of the debate is purely academic, and really, what is there to be gained by it? You are right in that there may not be much.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
92 Julie! C’mon, have a little faith!
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
12 Elisabeth,
“As long as women are free to choose to enter into polygamous relationships, then feminism doesn’t have much to say about these relationships. Or does it?” For those feminists who see polygamy as something inherently harmful, I can understand their concern. i myself do not share it, but I understand why they feel like it is something to speak out against.
A little clarification, I would never choose a polygamous arrangement per se, but I would happily accept it if (laws), if (doctrine), if (called). Meaning, it’s not something that we can choose, any more than any other calling in the church. What I can choose is my attitude about it, and yeah, I’d choose to be ok with it.
As for the feminist concerns, i don’t see them, myself. Then I again, I seem to be cut from a slightly different cloth than most other feminists. I see it as terriffically individually empowering, and beautifully steeped in a sistehood lifestyle that I find sorely lacking in our current society. Less time with the husband=more time to stand on your own two feet. Failing that, you have sister-wives to call on for support. I know I sound like I belong out on the island of Lesbos, but yeah, I do not see the inherent subordination that most feminists seem to.
As far as offically banned. i do not think so, and not just because I would take it if it were offered me. Constitutionally, I think it is wrong for such a ban to exist, but as to the boundaries of the defninition of marriage, don’t press me too hard, I’ve not thought it thorugh to any great extent–just enough to see the twists and turns in every direction. It’s a gordian knot for another day…
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
If Naiah answers every comment in a 94-comment thread individually, Julie, then she is either the nicest and most approachable person in the bloggernacle, or she is certifiable. Or perhaps both.
Also, if she answers every comment individually, I think it’s just a matter of time before people with too much time on their hands start adding comments for the sole purpose of getting a Naiah response.
This is a perfect object lesson on why polygamy would never work, you know. The ratio: 37 commenters to 1 blog poster. The blog poster will have to be a saint in order to reply to all of the comments. Or a little bit crazy. And even if she’s a saint, or crazy, some commenters are going to be ignored some of the time. And so we’ll have discussions amongst ourselves, like bored sister-wives, waiting for the monthly visit from the plural-marriage hub, whoever he or she may be.
Of course, this breakdown might not occur with the addition of one, or two, or maybe three sister wives. I can keep a conversation with three commenters going. I can’t have a discussion with 37 commenters, though, no matter how much I may like each individual commenter.
Comment by Kaimi — February 27, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
Three points, Kaimi.
Comment by Julie in Austin — February 27, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
14 manaen,
I’ve seen this parallel before. I think it is an attitude that once was, but not necessarily is anymore. I remember studying it in college gender studies courses, and even then (10 years ago) thinking that it wasn’t really like that much anymore.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
96 & 97, Kaimi & Julie–I do not plan to do this on every post. I kind of feel like, being new here that it’s important to give everyone a personal response as a show of respect. Y’know, throw a little namaste into the bloggernacle mix…it’s needed, I tell you.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
15 cchrissyy,
Thanks for the input. I hope that helps Kanga’s friend.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Thank you for the monthly visit, polygamous Naiah. Also for the new word - namaste, that’s a good one. I await your next monthly visit. In the meantime, I’ll be hanging out in the comments and chatting with the other sister wives.
Comment by Kaimi — February 27, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
Re: 92, 96 & 97, I hope she doesn’t give up before she gets to my comment, and (just to slather on the guilt) I’ll add that I’d feel really left out if she did…
Comment by Starfoxy — February 27, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
16 Caroline,
In this entry, I was referring to polygyny, but to address your question on it’s own, I would have to say that I would accept what the Lord commanded. Polygyny, polyandry, polygamy–however. I could make any of it work, and find unfeigned happiness and fulfillment in the doing.
As for plenty of males “up there”–It’s my understanding that they can not be sealed in the next life. (D&C 132).
As Kanga pointed out, you don’t have to worry about whether you could or not. It’s just academic (meaning ‘beyond implementation,’ just for the thought of it, so to speak) speculation on our part. I do not think or know or feel or even really wonder if we as a people would ever be called to live it again in this life.
Having existing polygamous families in countries where it is the custom broken up for the sake of joining the church!?!?! That, in my book, is like beyond wrong, but if it is, then it is. Perhaps it is wisdom in the Lord to do so, perhaps it is a poor administrative decision by someone (lay clergy and all). But, wow. I had no idea. regardless of my personal feelings about being ok with polygamy, that just seems wrong, and a little like the western cultural imperialism we read about. Enforcing our values on “lower” societies to “bring their barbaric selves up to our standards” and all that crap. I am like stunned speechless. Thank-you for telling me about this! If you can point me at a source I’d be very appreciative. Wow–that’s gonna figure into my thinking, seriously.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
17 Elisabeth,
Hello again. Yeah, stud vs. slut. Ugh. fading in some circles, but still under the surface for most. Whether it is progress or demise for society I do not know, but as the sexual revolution rolls on, I see that double standard fading more and more in extra-LDS society. Frankly, it’s too bad either way. There’s one number of acceptable sexual partners and it’s 1.
You make a nice tie in to the polygyny issue, though. Ok for man to have mor ethan 1, but not for women. Food for rumination.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
18 pellar,
D&C 132:54, dated 1843
Inetersting to consider in light of any authority claimed by Emma.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 11:53 pm
20 Jack,
I’m with you (and by the transitive property of with-ness, with President Young) on that. See above.
Comment by Naiah — February 27, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
21 Eric,
If I were to have an offical blog posse, you’d like *so* be in it. If I were in some kind of blog duel to the death, you’d totally be my second. I’m beyond bummed that your comment of friendly support was mininterpreted and edited out. You know how much I value your input, and your moral support as I have ventured out on this has been awesome.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 12:00 am
22 pellar,
I understand if you do not respond to this, as there is a lot to take in here, but I would say that He does allow all of us to err, but he will never suffer the church to be lead astray.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 12:03 am
23 Jane,
I am so sorry for you that it troubles you so. If it helps any, you can just assume that it was wisdom in God, but that we simply lack the scope or perspecive to see the whys and hows, but that they will be clearer in the next life. Take care, and, no, I highly doubt tha you are ‘just’ terrestrial material. We are, all of us, celestial creatures at heart, if we but let ourselves see it. Feel free to email me directly, if you like.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 12:06 am
24 Starfoxy!
I’m here! I made it! Do you feel the love???
I’ve seen this thinking–the whole “back then it made life easier” argument, and that is true, and I do not think that we should minimize that validity of that argument. Life in a tight, loving community wherein needs and resources are shared and traded is good, even today. maybe I just need to get a bunch of LDS families together and go build a cohousing complex somewhere, but the community aspect of it (polygamy) is more powerful than I think most people give thought to…y’know?
I’ve been in polyamorous relationships during my years away from the church, and y’know, it’s more workable than most would think (it’s not right by way of covenants and such, and I’d never do it again now that I have reclaimed my faith).
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 12:14 am
26 cchrissyy
Do siblings of the same mother only get a fraction of a mother? Love is infinite. (Time is not, but that can be worked around; all families are juggling acts of needs & resources.)
“Temporally, polygamy says men are necesary as sperm and paychecks, but not in daily life as parents or spouse” A fascinating take, and I can totally see how you got there. Why do you not, though, think that in a polygynous situation the father would not be present on a regular, ongoing, daily basis? If it’s done right, there is no reason a father should be less present than with one wife.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 12:58 am
per comment 25,
I have a pretty straightforward view about contention and the ‘nacle. There’s too much of it in here (often masquearding as academic debate or something equally benign), and I won’t participate in it. This one’s tickling my contention sensors, and so, I won’t say any more than that.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:03 am
I don’t necessarily agree that it is the same as loving more than one child. Children don’t like like this change. They get jealous, and it can take years to recover from it. Some children don’t recover. Some children are always going to be jealous of their other siblings. (My own son is still jealous of his little sister, and she’s three and growing). Do we really want or need that to be happening with wives as well?
Comment by Mardell — February 28, 2006 @ 1:08 am
27 Geoff B,
Thank-you for taking the effort to post on this even though this is not somewhere you usually participate.
“So, why do we waste so much time on the possible future practice of polygamy?”
I am sorry; my feelings on future practice was not meant to be the point of my post, but rather a convenient vehicle for it.
I have apologized in several comments now that I allowed sloppy writing to blur the line between the doctrinal point of my post and my own personal feelings. My point was that all we have been given about polygamy simply says that we do not practice it, nothing more nothing less, but that I often see it morally run down by Latter-day Saints.
I was wrong when I referred to it as “what might be the Lord’s model.” It is neither an ideal nor anything like a standard model for marriage. It has always been undertaken in exceptional circumstances under the Lord’s oredr, and always been condemned when undertaken otherwise.
“Every time a Church member starts such speculation they are potentially turning away people from the Church with false discussions that do not conform with current doctrine.”
Please know that I have no idea whether the practice of plural marriage will, would, could, or should be reinstated in this life. My conditional was that “if it were to be, then I would be OK with it.”
Your protective stance on behalf of those whose testimonies is sincerely admirable, and I will be more mindful of the potential effects of my words in future.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:14 am
28 Rebecca,
“It solidified my disgust with polygamy. The fact that Joseph kept it from Emma for years, and then blackmailed her to accept it (she couldn’t receive her endowmnet or be sealed to him unless she did), makes me think it was a massive mistake (and according to some sources Joseph said it was)”
Clearly, I need to get my butt in gear and read that book. I first saw it ages ago, and I’ve been flirting with it ever since. Wow, that’s some serious perspective on it.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:17 am
I’ll agree with Mardell (and also mention that she’s cute).
I do think that your response helps us to see that it’s _possible_ to divide love, Naiah. Clearly a parent can divide love.
On the other hand, there are many things about the parent-child dynamic that we probably don’t want to export into the marital dynamic. The parent-child dynamic is involuntary — one doesn’t choose one’s parents. The parent-child dynamic is based on vastly, vastly unequal power and bargaining position. The parent-child dynamic is often held together through brute force - as anyone who has had to physically hold down a squirming three-year-old can attest. The parent-child dynamic is partially impermanent as far as cohabitation - it is based on an idea of temporary (if 20 years can be seen as temporary) cohabitation, followed by eventual separation. None of these are attributes which we would want to export into the marital dynamic. How do you make decisions to bring across certain aspects of the parent-child dynamic — such as the number/love/jealousy aspect — without bring across others?
So I do think that your “Do siblings of the same mother only get a fraction of a mother?” argument is a nice sound bite, and is helpful for us to think for a moment about the nature of love, and possession, and possessiveness, and jealousy, and a whole host of related issues. As a thought-provoking exercise, it works nicely. However, I’m not convinced that it holds up as a theory of its own.
Also, I’ve seen families where a child does get a fraction of the mother. Many such families. They’re not pretty. These are thankfully not the majority, I would say. Nevertheless, they are not at all uncommon.
Comment by Kaimi — February 28, 2006 @ 1:21 am
29 Bee,
Hahahaha! That’s about how it’d have to work.
Fascinating bit of multiple relationship trivia: Adding one more person, does not add just one more relationship. Say you have A & B, and they start ‘dating’ C. You have A+B, A+C, B+C, A+B&C, B+A&C, C+A&B. It goes up like that with every person added. You see, people together (particularly with their spose) are different than they are alone, and so there are slightly different relationships that we have with people when their significant other is around, y’know?
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:23 am
30 Euphrasie,
“It’s probably a lot harder in practice, but things always are on earth.” How profoundly true is that?!?! You just blew my mind.
You are very right to parallel children and multiple spouses. The love does not run out for being shared–just like with children.
“Polygyny on earth just seems an extention of that.” which is why so many feminists are so frustrated with that point of doctrine. They see polygyny as oppressive, and therefore that reflection of it as wrong.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:27 am
As for Mormon Enigma - yes. Get thy butt to a bookstore, Naiah. You’re missing out. It’s definitely worth reading. (Polygamy is also discussed in somewhat less detail — but still much more than you’re likely to hear in Sunday School — in the new Joseph Smith bio by Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling. And if it’s a subject that interests you, you may want to check out Compton’s book about Joseph Smith’s wives, In Sacred Loneliness).
About watching out for the fragile testimonies of others — that’s one of the ongoing struggles in the blogs. Everyone draws the line in different places. Overall, Naiah, I have the sense that posts like this help more than they harm. But they will undoubtedly drive some people from the church. I have no doubt that my own blog has been a stepping stone for some people’s journey out of Mormonism. I think that that is balanced by it being a resource and bulwark for others, to build and solidify their faith. But it’s a balance that each person handles differently.
There have been extended discussions across the blogs about this issue. One of the lengthy discussions came up in a wonderful post by Kristine, located here. A post of mine also discusses the issue, and is located here.
Comment by Kaimi — February 28, 2006 @ 1:29 am
31 Artemis,
I’ll go so far as to say that I, too, agree that it’ll all work out. As to how, I make no attempt to even presume or assume, or guess, speculate, or wonder. It will, and it will be right and make sense as it should.
This darn veil…y’know? I completely accpet taht it is here for a reason, that we have to learn to stand and choose, but man, sometimes a little peek around the edges wouldn’t be so bad, y’know?
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:31 am
Kaimi, you’re killing me–did you really have to make two comments out of those?
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:33 am
32 Julz,
Thank-you for your very personal response. Temple remarriage can be difficult in a situation like your step-mom’s, but I am sure it will be worked out in the eternities. We just can’t see how yet.
As for a need for polygamy in the eternities, I can’t begin to imagine it myself, either, but as I tend to say there are some things that only a celestial perspective divested of the veil of this life, will reveal.
The Lord has His reasons, and really, we do not need to know them. We are not here in this life to dissect His will, we are here to grow our own, y’know?
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:39 am
33 Stephen,
Yes!
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:40 am
34 Kanga,
I believe I clarified that in my last response to you. But to restate: Doctrinally, we do not practice it; we have not been given a moral condemnation of it, and therefore I find it in appropriate when saints run it down on moral grounds, saying that it is tantamount to gay marriage and all.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:42 am
35 Caroline,
“wires crossed” On one level, the idea of referring to a prophet as having gotten his wires crossed makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but while he may have his own personal imperfections, we can be sure that the Lord will not suffer the church to be led astray.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:48 am
36 dangermom,
Thanks! I’ll be in touch about homeschooling. Right now I can use all the support, friends, advice, and guidance I can get! Please!
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:49 am
37 Suzanne,
Just about all I can do is nod my head. You’re spot on with all of it. It’s all about choice. And by “it” I mean this life. This life is for choosing, and growing and learning form the choices. No doubt. Thanks for chiming in.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:53 am
38 Rebecca,
Hmmm. My knowledge of the specifics involved is too distant to have anything useful to add, but a good question to consider.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:55 am
39 Kiskilili,
Y’know, I actually would, if he were someone I could love and his wives and I jived. If he were not, then no. Just like it would be in a 1:1 marriage.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 1:56 am
This blog software and I will need to come to a better understanding. My post above showed up properly in my window and in the magic preview window below, and then, when it posted, it cut everything out because I used a < in my message, and it didn’t even occur to me that it would screw up the html-ness. My bad, but the software gets the assist in the creation of the error.
Anyhow, to summarize what I wrote brilliantly before and can’t possibly reproduce when I’m tired:
1. On researching the nature of Utah-era plural marriage, I found that it offered a great deal of freedom and opportunities to the women involved. This led me to believe that a plural-marriage-optional society would offer a great deal to women as well — certainly as much as any of the other lifestyles that do or soon will have legal parity with “traditional” singular marriage (calling it “monogamous” is a sad joke).
2. This reasoning, and the reasoning at the top of the thread may have something to do with the reason the Utah chapter of NOW endorsed plural marriage for about fifteen minutes back in 1987 (or something similar). It then became seriously upset at itself, retracted the endorsement, gave itself a stern talking to, and then extracted a promise from itself that it would never do a thing like that again.
3. I am concerned (not just here, not just now, not just on this topic) when people say “I don’t care what God wants me to do or tells me to do — I want what I want and I don’t want what I don’t want, and I’m going to do what I want to do and not do what I don’t want to do.” I can get that reasoning from any three-year-old, and I don’t think it makes any more sense for us facing God’s will than it does for the three-year-old facing his parents’ will. There is a little room in Mormonism for the notion that plural marriage wasn’t demanded by God, and there is ample room to challenge whether or not it will be reinstituted in foreseeable timeframes. However, if we stipulate for the purposes of discussion the possibility that it might, then our answer needs to be that we will do what God wants us to do, and will pray for strength and comfort to do what we don’t think we can do. God knows what will make us happy better than we do, and if he says that this is something we need to do and we will be happy because of it, I would hope we would just eat our spiritual spinach and liver and get on to the happiness of the eternities that he would give us.
4. I join the challenge of the notion that plural marriage is all beer and skittles for the husband of more than one wife, and that the wives are nothing but victims. In any plural marriage of this style, the husband is outnumbered, and, in Utah-era plural marriage, it was not difficult for his wives to divorce him if they wanted to (while it was very difficult for him to divorce any of them if he wanted to), and a man whose wives left him could well be seen as a less than satisfactory marital prospect (not all cases — Brigham was divorced by several of his wives). This gave the husband lots of incentive to treat his wives well and care for them, and the accounts I have read have borne out that many did. If the plural marriages were arranged by priesthood leaders as a life-time calling, rather than something to be initiated by the man looking for an additional spouse, I would have little problem with it.
I had more to say before, and it was better, but y’all are going to have to settle for this. Blame it on the software — you could be reading much better stuff right now.
Comment by Blain — February 28, 2006 @ 1:59 am
40 Julz,
I’ve wondered the same thing about sealing singles to people for the sake of obtaining the ordinance. I haven’t gotten anywhere with it, but I have thought about it.
Would you really choose the life of a ministering angel to that of a goddess? I would not be so certain. You must remember the possibilty for the shift in mindset and perspective that will come in the next life when we get beyond this veil. Things that you do not get in this life with our limited scope may suddenly make sense.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 2:00 am
Aww, Blain! She was two comments away from acheiving total sidebar dominance, man! I was all ready to take a screencap of FMH with “Naiah: polygafeminist-surprise” as every recent comment. It was a bloggernacle moment waiting to happen — I was going to hang it on my wall, and preserve it for my grandkids. Kind of like the time that Power 92 played Ice Ice Baby sixteen times in a row.
Alas, the clock is reset, and I’m going to bed.
That said, interesting comment. I’m sorry that you got zapped the first time by evil software.
Comment by Kaimi — February 28, 2006 @ 2:03 am
41 anonymous,
Be careful about batting around the “who cares” too much, or you’ll land yourself in an existential crisis. And, frankly, you take on the eternities is plenty intelligent–no need for self-deprecation.
My point is not to guess what lies in store in the future in this life or in the eternities to come. Just to say that, hey, we haven’t been told that polygamy is immoral, just that it is not to be practiced, so everybody lay off the slamming on it.
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 2:06 am
Uncle! Uncle!
Oh, wait, more feminist..
Auntie! Auntie! Auntieeeeee!
I give–going to bed, and I’ll knock of some more tomorrow.
If I didn’t get to your comment tonight, I will. Thank-you so much, everyone for all the input. This has been fascinating, and I do feel clarified, edified, strengthened, & even a little chastized (in a good way) for it all. Sweet dreams, all!
Comment by Naiah — February 28, 2006 @ 2:20 am
#63, Starfoxy: “The idea that a woman can marry a second man but not be allowed to be sealed to him bothers me greatly. Especially in one case I know where the husband died while his wife was pregnant with their first child after a only year of marriage. Is it fair to ask her to not spend the rest of her life with a person who she might want as an additional eternal companion?”
My understanding is that the woman will be able to remarry for time, and after the resurrection, she will have her choice of men.
Polygamy in terms of remarriage came up quite a few times in my seminary years, and the answer always came back to “The Lord will work it out in the end, and the solution will be satisfactory to all parties involved.” I don’t know how it will be done, but I trust that it will be.
#125- WHOA. I think this deserves its own post, and a lot of deep thought.
Comment by Ariel — February 28, 2006 @ 2:31 am
That is in accord with my comments about the first doctors and the female artists.
A while back, a friend’s family was transferred to Europe when she was just a couple months away from finishing her masters. She stayed in an extra room in our house while her husband and children moved to Germany.
She got along very well with my wife. Obviously nothing improper went on, but other than that, it was very much like having another woman in the house. I found that I was much less central to things for some time. Kind of like the group of nurses and such in our current ward where the “girls” go off and do things by themselves, leaving the guys at loose ends (we need a bowling league or something).
But they were very happy, though I felt mildly left out at times (luckily “the girls” in our ward are busy, so all the husbands feel very supportive instead of sidelined). It was interesting
Made me think of just what would life be like if you were valued not for companionship, but only for your ability to work and for sex? I’m not sure, but it was definitely not something I wanted to experience for the long term.
Reminds me of a sister I knew in our old ward. She had a roommate in college who liked to clean and who was very heavy. She always wanted to bring her into her marriage, like a live-in maid. Her husband shuddered when the topic of plural marriage came up. But it made me think that if the practice came back, it would be women dating each other and men left out of the loop, with women free to leave the relationship at their initiative, men not given the choice.
So that a man facing either plural marriage or a funeral would state that he envied the man being buried (a nod to an event from history).
I do not see the demographics supporting such a thing right now, but I can well imagine plural marriage coming back for a way to support, emotionally and financially, single women over fifty.
Though, what plural marriage really did in the early Utah years was it made the LDS community into an ethnic group in record time. From that time, through the sixties, the LDS Church was an ethnic group as much as it was a religion, something that aided in the survival of the Church to this time.
People miss the dramatic impact that plural marriage had in that regard — not so much in terms of raw progeny (since it may or may not have increased the numbers) — but in terms of bound together progeny. Making a people out of people.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — February 28, 2006 @ 8:11 am
#135, Ariel: I know that women can be remarried for time, and I also have often heard the whole “it will be worked out in the eternities” more times than I can count.
What I was trying to get at is that the fallacy of saying “A man’s wife dies, and he’s sealed to another one, therefore there must be polygamy in the CK or else one wife gets the shaft.” and then discounting its potential to apply to women being sealed to more than one man as well. If it can’t apply to women too then it is pretty shaky logic.
The conversation goes like this:
me: “A woman’s husband dies and she is sealed to another man, then there must be polyandry in the CK or else one man gets the shaft.”
someone else: “women can’t be sealed to more than one man, they can only remarry for time.”
me: “Then why don’t we just say that men can’t be sealed to more than one woman, and tell them to just remarry for time too?”
someone else:”Because the church allows men to be sealed to more than one woman.”
That whole train of logic is dependant on church policy, whereas people recite it as the *reason* for church policy.
Also the policy of limiting previously sealed women to marry only for time means that any man she marries will not be sealed to anyone unless he has been previously sealed too. That’s a pretty stiff sacrifice on his part since we’re told that if he doesn’t get sealed in this life he won’t get a chance in the next.
Comment by Starfoxy — February 28, 2006 @ 8:59 am
Naiah,
someday you will get to me, your (somethinglike) eighty-sixth sister-commentor, when you are ready to give me my fair nugget of love and affection, answer me this (without platitudes please) . . . .
Suppose that the Lord commands(ed) it, the church endorses(ed) it, and some really mature peole manage to enter into an idealic (ish) poligynous marriage. BillyBob and his four happy sister wives.
They all sincerely love each other, Billlybob is good at spreading the love, and the sisterwives feel no jealousy, and love each other a great deal. They share the burdens of motherhood, and they share children, they are strong independent women who made this choice willingly and are very happy with their choice. It’s a big happy eternal family. It’s heaven-ish, down right celestial-ish.
Then suppose that one day, BillyBob visits Oklahoma on business, and becomes born again. He no longer believes in Mormonism or celestial marriage. He leaves his family to become a circuit evangulist, he has a web site. (that has nothing to do with the senario, but I couldn’t resist)
Meanwhile the four sisterwives are left behind. They have built a family together, they love each other deeply, they share children, they want to be together forever. But they no longer have any ties to each other, eternal or otherwise. They are not sealed to each other, they are sealed to Billybob, and Billybob is gone.
In the most basic way, they depend, absolutely, on a man to make their relationship binding. They have exactly zero control over their eternal relationships with each other.
Is there any way that you can make this work out in your mind to be anything but crazy unfair? And if it is as crazy unfair as it seems to me, can this really not bother you, even a tinsy bit? Looking forward to your answer, and like I said, no platitudes please.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 28, 2006 @ 9:20 am
Starfoxy: I’ve always thought this grossly unfair myself - for the reasons you bring up — namely, why should women only be allowed to be sealed to one man if they’re widowed, and why should the guy give up his chance to be sealed to someone at all?
FWIW, I am married to a non-member, and while I will never relinquish hope that he will someday be the one I’m sealed to, I have to realistically look at the possibility that this may very well never happen. I would so much rather be wife #2 or #3 or etc. to an incredible guy whom I could love and who would love me rather than spend an eternity as a single ministering angel. And what sister in purest charity would begrudge me that blessing of having a sealing ordinance - even if it were with her husband? (I’m really not that fantastic of a person for anyone to get jealous over — trust me). And of course this doesn’t only apply to part-member families; I’m sure that there will be many sealed couples where *one* partner doesn’t live up to her or his covenants and their sealing will not be enforced.
So look out ladies…
Comment by meems — February 28, 2006 @ 9:22 am
fMhLisa: re: The 4 sister wives BillyBob left behind. Please forgive me for my ignornance,becuse I’ve never wanted to do any sealing ordinances (at the risk of sounding hypocritical to the comment made above, it never felt “right” to do a sealing ordinance, even as a proxy, with someone other than my husband!!!), but are the women somehow also sealed to each other, and not just to BillyBob? I have been told, with regards to children being sealed to parents, that children are NOT inactuality sealed to their parents, but sealed to the covenant. Does this same rule apply? Are the sister wives sealed to the covenant and not actually to BillyBob? Would this make them still an eternal family without the need for BillyBob’s actually being there?? I don’t know the answer to this.
Comment by meems — February 28, 2006 @ 9:28 am
ignornance. Okay….
Comment by meems — February 28, 2006 @ 9:32 am
Naiah- Bravo girlfriend for all you comments. Comment 108 - leading us astray and JS death. .. I think that polygamy could have been a mistake AND that we were not neccesarily lead astray. We’ve been taught many erronious things in the past that have since been rescinded. It could have been a teaching that in fact had no doctrinal back up, and yet did not neccesarily qualify for leading us astray.
On the same note, you are right, litterally, in the sense that the reason JS was killed was indirectly related to polygamy. You probably already know this….William Law, Joseph’s 2nd counselor in the 1st presidency, left the church over polygamy and Joseph’s denial of it. Soon thereafter, he published the 1st and only edition of the Nauvoo Expositor, which claimed 1st-hand testimony from several sources that Joseph was practicing polygamy, counter to his public denials. Joseph ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press. Joseph’s order to destroy the printing press catalyzed events that ultimately resulted in his being jailed for Treason. You know the rest of the story. Site Mormon Stories.
Comment by pellar — February 28, 2006 @ 9:41 am
Naiah and Jack, As for comment 112 and 25. I admit that little thought went into this reactionary comment and I apologize.
Comment by pellar — February 28, 2006 @ 9:44 am
Re:
“But one (possible) offspring hardly justifies 32 extra wives, no? So it seems that there was something more to JS’s polygamy than increasing offspring. ”
I have long thought that God had multiple objectives in mind when He re-instated polygyny. Firstly there was the “raising up seed” idea which, contrary to some opinions, has NOT been debunked. Studies of Utah cities have shown that, contrary to researcher’s expectations, these families were indeed larger than polygynous families studied in non-LDS areas. (As anyone who has done their genealogy and had to enter 15 children per wife could have told them.) Secondly, as has been mentioned, there was the effect of making us an instant ethnicity. Also polygny did offer help for the unmarried or widowed who wouldn’t have been able to survive on their own.
The thing to remember when considering JS’s seed or lack thereof, is that this was a principle for the church, for everyone, not just JS. As the prophet he had to lead by example and so he started it.
I can see the appeal of the idea that Joseph Smith was martyred because he was leading the church astray but I can’t support it. First of all, he was murdered at a time when he hadn’t married anyone else for 15 months. (Hm, can’t find my book just now. That time periond may be off.) Why kill him when he’s stopped? Secondly, if he was killed to prevent him from leading the church astray into polygyny… then God’s plan failed spectacularly because under Brigham Young and the following leaders is when the polygynous period of LDS history really began. That I simply can’t believe.
Polygyny is confusing and hard for some people to accept and hard for others to practice properly… but so is life and I don’t see anyone advocating an abolishment of that! I can see how some people would feel that polygyny isn’t fair to women — well neither are the dangers of childbirth, the pains of nursing, or the difficulties that so many women have in enjoying intercourse. I struggle with the thought sometimes that women seem to get the short end of the stick but I trust God and I know that there is a purpose to everything. I don’t know it what it is now but some day I will.
Comment by harpingheather — February 28, 2006 @ 9:51 am
meems: with regards to children being sealed to parents, that children are NOT inactuality sealed to their parents, but sealed to the covenant.
I believe that you have the sealing backwards. Without going into specifics, the covenant between husband and wife and child and parent are different in that the former seals blessings upon the pair based on the convenant made, and the latter literally seals individuals.
This seems a paradoxical, and I have been pondering in the for months. The only explanation I have been able to come up with, and I’m not convinced that it is complete, is that the purpose of the sealing is not to seal husband and wife as an individual family unit, but to seal children to parents who are under the covenant in line to Adam and Eve as an eternal family of our Father in Heaven.
That’s not to say there aren’t blessings from the husband and wife covenant which are sealed upon them for eternity, because there are. Rather, the literal family welding is intergenerational rather than intragenerational.
As far as sister-wives, I do not believe their covenants were with each other, only as individuals to their husband. I have also heard that a faithful spouse under the covenant with an less-than-faithful spouse does not forfeit her/his blessings, but I’m not sure of this given the trilateral nature of the covenant.
Comment by Polly — February 28, 2006 @ 9:59 am
I agree, harpingheather, that drawing a correlation between JS death and leading us astray would be a stretch.
But do you really think that drawing a correlation between the hardships of polygamy and the hardships of general life is correct?
Comment by pellar — February 28, 2006 @ 10:12 am
I thought I would post Hinckley’s comment below to get feed back on what you all think about it.
During an interview with Larry King on CNN, when asked about polygamy, President Hinckley stated:
“I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law.”
Comment by pellar — February 28, 2006 @ 10:30 am
Polly-
Great comment! I too have been pondering this concept because my excommunicated father-in-law has been recently asking questions. You see, he and my MIL were divorced 15+ years ago. He remarried civilly and my MIL has been single. She is getting remarried (resealed) to another guy and will be wife #2 as he is a widower. My FIL is all worried that his kids (all of whom are sealed to their spouses) will be sealed to my MIL’s new husband. Sorry, totally off subject.
As I understand it, children are not “welded” to the family. The sealing of children is for the purpose of blessings. The male and female are sealed for the purpose of entrance to the proper part of the CK and the first resurrection. By the way, you can be in the CK if you are not sealed. Anyway, it seems to me that it would be a huge cluster with husands and wives and children who are also sealed to their husbands and wives who are sealed to their in laws and on and on…
Comment by Laura S — February 28, 2006 @ 10:48 am
Naiah (#125), responding to Caroline (#35): To think of him as a “fallen”prophet in his last days, is certainly hard to do, but, in a way, it can solidify one’s testimony of the true priesthood authority of the church–as in further their testimony of the fact that the Lord will NOT allow the church to be led astray, even to the cost of martyring the prophet should he do so…Whoa, that’s huge.
I haven’t followed this thread, but since Snarker highlighted this comment I thought I’d point out that the argument obviously fails, since the Lord allowed other prophets to teach polygamy for four or five decades without slaying them.
Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — February 28, 2006 @ 11:50 am
fmhLisa (#138), the Lord is reasonable. Presumably he would look favorably on the four wives’ wish to stay together and be given to another in a package deal. If they fancied, they could become Joseph Smith’s oh, say, 762nd-765th wives.
Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — February 28, 2006 @ 11:55 am
“But do you really think that drawing a correlation between the hardships of polygamy and the hardships of general life is correct? ”
I wasn’t drawing a correlation– by which I mean I wasn’t saying that they are equal to each other. I was just pointing out that they are similar to each other. Life is confusing and difficult and marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous, is part of life and made up of imperfect people and therefore subject to the same mix of strengths and weaknesses as everything else in life.
Comment by harpingheather — February 28, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Naiah,
You asked about where I got my info that the Church will not allow polygamous families in Africa join the Church. Here are quotes from two articles that talk about it. Very ironic that the RLDS church does allow these polygamous families to join their church.
England Dialogue 20(4) 1987, “On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage”p. 150-151
“My second reason for questioning eternal polygyny, in addition to the lack of scriptural support for such a doctrine, is that if polygyny were the highest order of marriage, surely the Lord would want us to practice it whenever and wherever we could on earth. But he does not. I feel certain, and those I have consulted who are trained in the law agree~that a serious effort by the Church to strike down the anti-polygamy laws as unconstitutional would succeed. But the Church not only does not make such an effort; I understand it takes action against those who seriously advocate doing so. We do not even allow our members to continue practicing polygyny in countries where it is legal. Thus, one of the strangest paradoxes of Mormon history is that the Reorganized Church, which claims the Lord never revealed polygyny, allows members to practice it in India and Africa, while the Utah-based LDS Church, which claims the Lord did reveal it, does not allow anyone to practice it.”
Sunstone 11:5, p. 46 (Sep 87)
“In an ironic twist, modern polygamists may find a warmer reception in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint than they do among the Mormons. Although the once-polygamous LDS church now excommunicates any member involved in polygamy under certain conditions the RLDS church (which historically had denied that Joseph Smith even taught the doctrine of plural wives) will permit the baptism of individuals involved in polygamous relationships. While this is a rare event which usually occurs in India or Africa, desiring individuals may be baptized under three conditions: (1) they understand that the may never hold the priesthood; (2 they pledge in their village or congregation to take no additional wives; (3) they promise to rear their children by teaching them the correct principle of monogamy.”
Comment by Caroline — February 28, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
me: “A woman’s husband dies and she is sealed to another man, then there must be polyandry in the CK or else one man gets the shaft.”
someone else: “women can’t be sealed to more than one man, they can only remarry for time.”
Except, of course, I’ve known women sealed to more than one man.
BTW, the notes about polygamous families in Africa was true while my parents served their mission there.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — February 28, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Hi all,
Good conversation,
I served my mission in Africa. I want to confirm that during the baptismal interview that the subject of polygamy comes up and if a man is a polygamist he will not be baptized. (I realize this is a simple answer)
Also all the major christian denominations accept or turn a blind eye to polygamy amongst their members in Africa. We are talking Anglicans, Methodists (AME some of them) Presby, Catholics ETC. I have even met polygamist priests in rural areas. I had one Priest tell me that there was nothing biblically wrong with polygamy
I always thought this was funny and when people here in the bible belt tell me that “you mormons are so evil cause of Polygamy” I often start telling them that their church has a mixed record on polygamy in Africa.
For me Polygamy is a part of my family history and is long dead (OK since the 1930’s when the sister wives of my wifes Great Grandpa died out)
It is not coming back as far as I can tell. Good riddance. It was painful…….
Comment by bbell — February 28, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
Polygamy is generally nails on a blackboard to me, but I’ve had several experiences that have tempered and complicated my thoughts and feelings on the matter:
1) During my re-conversion to Mormonism as a college student I wound up (to my great surprise) voluntarily entering a polygynous dating relationship as girlfriend #2 out of 3. It was no picnic for any of us, boyfriend included, but it gave me insights on the difficulties of multipronged intimacies. I learned a great deal about myself and probably grew spiritually in ways I might not have otherwise. But then we could say that about any number of wretchedly difficult experiences, couldn’t we.
2) The first book I read that helped me get inside polygamy in any kind of sympathetic way was _Saints_ by Orson Scott Card. It’s a fictionalized retelling of the life of Eliza R. Snow (wife to both JS and BY). I recommend it, especially if you are a Card fan.
3) And the best insight ever to polygamy as it was practiced in Utah is the autobiography of Annie Clark Tanner called _A Mormon Mother_. She was the daughter of a #2 wife and then became a second wife (marrying one of her BYU profs, and yes, she describes how this married man courted her, first wife and all). She wrote her story late in life when she realized that her post-manifesto grandchildren looked at polygamy only with disdain and with very little understanding. She is a gifted, clear-eyed writer and manages to describe the searing difficulty of living polygamy even as she affirms her absolute belief in the principle at the time. If you’re going to the bookstore, Naiah, add this one to your list.
Comment by nicole — February 28, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
“is that why Joseph was allowed to be martyred?”
Um, highly doubtful that the Lord allowed Joseph to be martyred because of polygamy, given that, as Christian pointed out, the doctrine continued well past his death.
I think it had to do with the fact that Joseph didn’t have a clue how to get those people across the plains, and BY was the man to do it.
Or maybe the Lord has a better reason that He is choosing not to share with us. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Comment by Heather O. — February 28, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
my husband and I are extremely oposed to remariage and resealing after death, because we believe our marriage is eternal and we believe in eternal life. so if I’ m not really “dead”- just “away”- and our marriage is still in force, then to turn to a new spouse is adultery.
As to couples everywhere who’ve already done so- fine, let them all be sealed to all concerned, but in my opinion
and plenty of folks in the millenium wil be willing to finlize that sealing.
1)some disgruntled spouses may have “moved on” too, on the other side. there’s plenty of ill children and young soldiers to choose from over there
Like the newlywed man killed whose wife has a full life with another- fine, remarry if you must, but don’t expect 2 husbands later, the newlywed proably found a soulmate from his premortal friends.
2)in order to progress to Godhood, you’re going to have to pick your one true partner. Beyond the veil, I think it will be clear who is the perfect match to unify with, becoming one perfected creative force of Priesthood power together.
3)I don’t see a problem for children getting sealed to the “wrong parent”. we’re saved as couples and individuals, not parent-child. Child sealings bring blessings for linking back to Adam, they are not celestial living assignments.
I was sealed to my 2 littlest in the temple last year. this does not mean they are coming wherever dad and i go in our eternal progression
Comment by cchrissyy — February 28, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
In response to allegations that I am numbers-whoring, I’ll be posting the responses in batches now.
42 Not Ophelia,
Mass-expectation of polygamy would undoubtedly have societal consequences like you mention. That’s why there’s a big “only if God commands” in front of my belief, for each and every marriage.
43 Julz,
How creatively do you justify your ideologies? Everyone does it; not just the people you don’t agree with. I do not mean to be harsh, but everyone gets to their opinion by their own train of logic, and as it was what got them there, it’s what they believe to be the reason. Sure people will ass something up if they’re running on a gut feeling and call it a reason, but I doubt the level of interpersonal honesty required for them to anything else will ever be socially acceptable in our society. Shame, isn’t it?
44 Ana,
I see your name and I can’t help but think of the prefix “ana-“ that means “without.” It just made me giggle.
Great stories, and you’re right; they do really pull from both ends of the spectrum. Thanks for sharing them.
45 janae,
The “…except when” ambiguity you bring up is certainly worth some further thought. I would suppose it is a matter of rules and exceptions, and simple obedience on our part, but there is the human desire to understand, to know how to look at it, how to process it, where to place it in the chain of events we call our life…hmm, food for thought.
Thank-you for being so candid in your response.
46 dangermom,
How cool is that?!?! (You knowing about the Sarah Crossley auto)
I wish we could pull statistics on what you mentioned! You make a fantastic hypothetical point!
47 Katreena,
My gratitude is profound. After the run I’ve had on this, simple words of agreement are sweeter than ambrosia. Thank-you.
48 Ex cop mom
Whoa, yeah. Remember, though that that is their interpretation of “the way JS and BY meant the gospel to be lived.” Our church leaders have made it clear that it is not. No headaches needed. Thanks so much for your firsthand account.
49 Elisabeth,
“central tenet of feminism is that women and men are equal, and should be treated equally.” I actually tend to view this as the Achilles’ heel of most feminism, at least as most women seem to interpret the idea. It most often manifests as the idea that men and women should be treated as if they were the same. We are not the same, though, we *are* different. Different, though, does not imply inequal. Until she can accept this fundamental truth, I see no escape from feminism being a permanent state of ‘banging one’s head against the wall’ for any woman.
Some day it’ll be time to take the cause to the next level, and go ahead and accept and celebrate those parts of us that make us different form men—without any thought of fear of inequality inherent in such.
50 Ronan,
Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to bug you while you were praying.
51 kristi,
YES! Well done. Sealed is sealed. I like it, and this:
“Jealousy, and anger, and selfishness are hopefully not feelings that we experience in the CK. Neither is pride, dominanation, or abuse. Those are the nessasary components of an unhealthy polygamous marriage.”
52 Seth R.,
“American societal”-I don’t know about calling it baggage, but it is impossible for anyone to be aught but what they’ve had the life experience to make them to be. Call it rather, “American societal perspective”
I’ve dealt a lot with the idea of divesting oneself of the confines of the infrastructure of one’s point of view. It’s an interesting problem, that time and again has yielded that one can not conceive of anything outside of his or her life experience. Even a spark of an idea shared can be enough to bust out a whole wall of the perceptive confines, but that spark, that new way always has some roots in the person’s life experience. So, people can be as objective as their window on the world has scope for. (including me!
)
53 Seth R,
When I read that first sentence, I went “BOOM! That’s it!”
We tend to equate God with good. And moral with good. There are times though when morality and good are in conflict. Take Laban’s head for example. Thou shalt not kill. This remnant of my house needs to have the scriptures. It might be immoral to smite off a head, but it was good for Lehi’s family to have the brass plates. Therefore, God had Nephi do the good thing, even though it might not have been what we in our humanity would call the moral thing. Holy cow. Wow. Very fun angle. Thank-you! (See, you just remodeled part of my point of view! Wahoo!)
54 Ex cop mom,
What’s FGM mean?
As for objective, please see the two comment just before this one.
“when it is something for which we may someday be called upon to bear testimony?” That was my point in mentioning that we should not be so quick to decry it. Well stated.
55 Naiah,
Oh, wait, that’s me.
56 jjohnsen,
Alas, I’m tv-free! (for almost 2 years now), but it sounds really interesting. Ok, I could do without seeing their creepy eyes. (I totally know what you mean, though)
Comment by Naiah Earhart — February 28, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
57 Julie in Austin
“no ’smoking gun’ that clarifies that there will be polygamy in the eternities”
Except for the whole sealed on earth sealed in heaven thing. (meaning that I believe existing sealings will be in force—not that addition ones will be made or anything like that)
“I sincerely believe that it will not be required in the hereafter.” Me neither. We obey as the Lord has decreed, and His promises are sure. If we are not given polygamy to obey, I do not see any reason to assume that it will be required of us later on.
58 Kaimi,
“Would you say that the same reasoning applies to women and polygyny? That any women who would voluntary enter into such an arrangement should be presumed as lacking capacity to do so? Is this presumption rebuttable?”
No, no, it just doesn’t carry. To offer oneself as a slave is to surrender ones sovereign autonomy. To enter into a marriage is not. There is a parallel between the two logics, but ti just doesn’t flow through to lay them on top of each other like this.
59 Kaimi,
Well, you get points for trying.
60 Tea,
Guy does that now and then.
61 Tea,
Are you three in a race or something?
Also, my apology on the lack of accent on your name. I am on the pc, and can’t figure out how to type the accent. (Where is the option key??? There is no option key! How do you make alternate characters???)
62 Elisabeth,
“I’m not convinced that the status of women has progressed far enough so that females have bargaining power equal to males in structuring alternative sexual relationships”
I can’t speak for polygamous cultures, but I have been involved in polyamorous social circles here in the Seattle area, and I have to say that the women there are doing just fine, and enjoy just as much status and savvy as the men.
“polygamous relationships because, typically, the women are financially dependent upon men, and have fewer options for independence”
How is there more dependence in polygamous marriage than in monogamous?
“given competing interests and priorities.”
Again, this same kind of negotiation has to go on between husbands and wives here and now.
63 Starfoxy,
Stories like that can break the heart, no doubt. I don’t know the doctrinal reasons behind women being able to be sealed to only one man these days. (Does anyone?) I can accept them, though.
64 Ana,
It is so cool that you two’s a-cousins!
65 Ex cop mom,
Y’know, I have no idea whether this is or could or might be the case. If it were, predictably, I’d be ok with it. I have a husband and an ex-husband (to whom I am still sealed for the time being). My daughter calls them Daddy Robby and Daddy Mike. More parents to love you just means all the more kisses for your boo-boos when you get them.
66 Julz,
“I must be a complete failure” Whoa, no way, sister. That just means that it hasn’t happened. No judgement on you implied. It’s just a fact, Julz is not married, nothing more nothing less, don’t make more of it than it is. Maybe I should introduce you to Mike. (see above)
67 Elisabeth,
Wow, thank-you so much for all your participation. I didn’t realize until now, as I’m going through them all just how much you contributed! Wow!
Well said, here.
68 Blain,
Ah, html woes. I’ll catch it in your reprise later on. (I *hate* when something I’ve worked at writing slips through the bits, so to speak.)
69 Anon-at-present,
That’s hardly my picture of the happy-poly-family all at home together, but it is *so cool* nonetheless! As far as the patriarchy question goes, my thought was simply in a modern society, as the US is heading to now (Patriarchy fades evermore with each generation; I do not see it as thriving or growing. It just takes a while for everything to even out. This is a process that moves by generations not by years or even decades. It is dead; the remains just need to rot away yet, y’know?) where there is an even social playing field, but that the church, of course would still be a patriarchy—which given the negative connotations of that word in this context (societal patriarchy and the patriarchy of the church are vastly different institutions at heart for all that they each involve paradigms similar on the narrative level.) is practically a misnomer.
70 Julie-in-Austin,
I do not think that polygamy necessitates emotional distance between spouses at all. There is room in the heart for multiple, active, close, thriving loves. Really, there is.
71 Guy,
72 Gerri,
I must confess that I had the same brainspark after Ex cop mom’s question above about the possibility of there being more than one. It should be noted that we have never been given any indication that there is, and that this is merely idle speculation on our parts but that sure would be a fascinating ‘plot twist’ to discover when we move on to the next life, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Naiah — March 1, 2006 @ 12:11 am
73 Matt Jocobsen,
“The pain of that would lead me to prefer being one of multiple husbands rather than a man with multiple wives.”
I think that is one of the most precious things that I’ve read in month. Your wife is a lucky woman to have a man who cares so much.
“It’s comforting to have a marriage where the relationship is one-on-one with no other complications.”
You’re right on that score. Complications go up practically exponentially with each partner added. Before long the permutations get countless and it can be a little befuddling.
74 Seth R.,
This is a vital point to remember when condemning polygamy based on real life scenarios from our history: “No societal movement was ever birthed in perfection.” Very profound.
“That’s another thing - whenever criticizing polygamy, it’s only fair to consider how it stacks up to monogamy, which ain’t been no bed of roses either, I remind you.” Another vital point.
Thanks so much for you input (and support).
75 SK,
Exactly! That was a huge motivator in my having written this post.
76 Janet-at-present,
“reticent to suggest the superiority of my cultural model” Good inner anthropologist! Give it a cookie!
Also, the marriage advice that we are given (in the Ensign/from the pulpit at conference, etc) is in response to the current need of our culture, I think. Right now our cuture is under some very specifically targeted attacks, and perhaps the marriage advice we are given is in response to those. It’s just speculation on my part, but I believe that’s one of the beauties of being a church blessed with ongoing revelation. We can and do get guidance tailored to us in our times.
I’m tired, too. This might be it for tonight.
Comment by Naiah — March 1, 2006 @ 12:29 am
BTW, one thing that struck me about the time after Christ returns, is that it lasts so long. A thousand years, mostly of people doing temple work and such. That is a lot of time spent cleaning things up and getting re-ordered.
I do not know the answers, but I know that God loves us.
I do not know the purposes of all of God’s commands, though I can see some purposes.
At some point, either we decide to have faith in God as we come to know God, or we decide that we know better. But the Spirit abides, and so we have to decide if we really want to listen or not.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — March 1, 2006 @ 6:37 am
Amen, Stephen, and a good point, too. Thanks for your voice of faith.
Comment by Naiah — March 1, 2006 @ 11:17 am
79 harpingheather,
Thanks, I appreciate the validation.
81 Kaimi,
Yup, still trying. I figured it’d be nice, but in the end probably purely academic. I don’t know if anyone is reading them. *shrug* Hopeless? Never! I put the cute, little *bleep* in tenacity. Oh my, dear me, did I say that???
Uh, yeah, clustering them…might have been a good strategy. Oh well, no way out but through at this point.
82 Anelie,
“which everyone understood” Yes, that is totally one of the problems with it in this life, I believe. We have such a hard time with the idea because we lack the perspective of a celestial time line. We’re caught in this brief period through “the veiled years” and it can be hard to see beyond it.
“And IF I encounter it in the afterlife, well, I’m sure my point of view on a lot of topics will be different then” I actually said BINGO when I read this.
83 harpingheather,
You actually didn’t address what was brought up. You are his first wife, and you do not mind others coming along, but would you be willing to be someone else’s #2, etc? I think that was the point of the comment you cited.
89 harpingheather,
I’m dying to know if your screen name refers to playing the musical instrument or harping on a point as in doggedly debating it? Either way, I totally love it; it works.
“You can’t use examples of bad polygynous marriages to refute polygyny. If that were the case you might as well use all the examples of bad monogamous marriages to abolish that institution as well” Ladies and gentlemen, we have another bingo!
And another great story, by the way. Hahaha, there should be a collection of “real life polygamous fairy tales” Ok, maybe not, but it sounded good.
91 Julie in Austin,
Undoubtedly, but as to just what it was, we really don’t have any way to know.
92 Julie in Austin,
NEVER!!!! Bwahahaha! (Ooops, the insanity of it all just caught up with me for a second there…)
96 Kaimi,
I like to think I’m really nice and approachable, but that’s the problem isn’t it? We all live in the essential dichotomy–who we are versus who we want to be, with our self image floating somewhere in-between. So, in a spirit of objective self-honesty, it’s probably a little of both.
97 Julie in Austin,
Can I play, too?
101 Kaimi,
Namaste: “the divine in me recognizes the divine in you.” It’s a fantastic concept. We taught it to our children before I came back to the church (before Rob was baptized), and even now we use it for it still holds true in light of our celestial heritage.
102 Starfozy,
Done and done.
113 Mardell,
Because children envy each other, is that a reason to only have one?
116 Kaimi,
“Clearly a parent can divide love” No, it is not dividing love. You love each child fully, with your whole heart; there is no sum total to be portioned out. Emotions defy the mathematics of the concrete.
Don’t out wors in my mouth. I am not carrying over the dynamic—simply demonstrating that love is not a finite resource.
“I’m not convinced that it holds up as a theory of its own.” I am. I have lived it. I do not continue to do so, but I can assure you that yes, multiple loves is possible to feel and live and celebrate. Granted I experienced it only in a dating looking to become (life-) partners kind of way (monogamous equivalent would be being engaged), and not any kind of sanctioned established marriage. The heart was there, though, and so I know it can work. It was outside my years in the church, and being back now, it is not anything I would undertake again, but understand that I come to this position with life experience to back it up, and not just intellectual fancy.
“Also, I’ve seen families where a child does get a fraction of the mother. Many such families.” My heart truly breaks for them. I can relate.
119 Kaimi,
I’ll look at those posts when I finish up with all this and get caught up on a few other things, but definitely, thanks for the links.
As for the books, I have a copy of RSR right here. It, too, is waiting for a spare moment. As for ME & ISL, I’ll get there. They’re in the queue, but my queue is getting might long!
130 Blain,
I tried; I really did. I went in to your previous comment under the edit function, and there’s nothing. It just leaves off like it does on the public view. Alas…but I did want you to know that I tried. Well, dealing with this version:
1. ok
2. fascinating—I would love to know the reasoning behind both the initial take and the retraction. (most likely associated with the abuse-ridden polygamy—but just a guess on my part)
3. “if we stipulate for the purposes of discussion the possibility that it might, then our answer needs to be that we will do what God wants us to do, and will pray for strength and comfort to do what we don’t think we can do” Exactly.
4. “If the plural marriages were arranged by priesthood leaders as a life-time calling, rather than something to be initiated by the man looking for an additional spouse, I would have little problem with it.” I’m not sure I agree with that thorugh-and-through. In this sam eparagraph you mention the benefits of the wives having the ability to divorce if they so choose. To be called to the marriage by someone outside it seems, well, oppressive in a way, and kind of like how the FLDS do it. I think that, perhaps the husband should be called to be someone who takes plural wives, but that the wives should decide on an individual basis (with counsel from priesthood leaders and consulting the Lord in prayer) whether it is right for them. But that’s an unrefined, off-the-cuff judgement. I’ll have to mull over what I truly feel the nature of the calling in relation to it should be.
132 Kaimi,
You spent way too much time following this thread! Clearly this was *not* a night needed to do class prep!
Comment by Naiah Earhart — March 2, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
Naiah:
Your comment (#107) is meaningful to me. You seem to be handling things very well. Where do you find the time? No TV I suppose.
Comment by Eric — March 2, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
Actually the “harping” in my name is a reference to my husband’s family name. (I plan to switch but am too chicken to face the paperwork.)
Re #32:
” I have yet to hear of a single woman who would accept being number 2, etc.”
My feelings on the matter haven’t changed. I had no problem with polgyny when I was single and now that I’m married, I don’t fear that another, different, possibly younger wife (or two) would take my husband from me. I know I’d have less of his time but I wouldn’t have less of his heart.
You’re right Naiah, I didn’t address the question clearly. Let me clarify things further: I’m not speaking from the security of a temple marriage. My husband isn’t LDS. If the family were one I loved, admired, respected and trusted — all things one hopes to feel going into a marriage no matter how many wives are involved — then no, I don’t believe I would mind being wife #2 or #5.
Comment by harpingheather — March 2, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
I found this site quite by accident and now I am sitting here with my jaw on the floor.
I think I understand what mormonism is now.
I am so creeped out.
Comment by janeP — March 2, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
I’ve read enough about how polygamy was applied in practice to not be horribly appalled at 19th century polygamy. I don’t think our culture would take it at this point though.
What convinced me that polygamy was just Joseph Smith getting too excited about restoring all things was how polygamy ended. The polygamous Church leaders were teaching that the persecution they were enduring was the prophesied persecution before the Second Coming, and Christ himself would soon return and instate polygamy worldwide. Didn’t happen.
Instead, state persecution ended polygamy. What happened to all the promises about how if the Saints humbly live the doctrine, the hearts of their enemies will be softened? In the sermons preached by polygamists, I haven’t heard the preachers warning that God will rescind the Principle unless they do better at living it. Yeah, they get told to shape up every so often, but OD-1 doesn’t say a thing about God pulling the practice of polygamy based on the wickedness of the people practicing polygamy. Polygamy got ended by the secular world.
If polygamy was all that important and all that inspired, the federal government wouldn’t have been able to shut it down. God was not supporting the Saints in the Principle, therefore the Principle was not of God.
Comment by Melinda — March 3, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
Naiah–thanks for a civil and thought-provoking discussion!
One of the reasons D&C 132 troubles me is that the verb God uses to describe the manner in which he and others set up polygamous relationships is “give” (see verses 34, 37, 39, 44, 48, 51, 52, etc.). “Give” seems to me an appropriate way to describe how one interacts with an object in one’s possession. “Give” does not seem an appropriate way of interacting with a sentient, accountable being with whom one has a relationship. (Note for example that David will not “inherit [his wives] out of the world, for [the Lord] gave them unto another” v. 39–the unmistakeable impression is that David’s wives were temporarily his possession but ultimately the Lord’s possession to do with as he chose, neither of which situations sits well with me.)
However polygamy may have functioned in various cultures and may function theoretically, in the manner in which God specifically commanded it, the language underscores the fact that wives were property. Maybe Joseph Smith was limited by his own cultural assumptions about the status of women–one could argue even wives in monogamous relationships were property back then. But it disturbs me, nonetheless. My primary objection to polygamy is a broader objection to the appropriateness of God, or anyone else, “giving” people.
Comment by Kiskilili — March 3, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Kiskilili,
I can’t say it’s my “primary obejection to polygamy” but I’m right with you for “give” being uncomfortbale in D&C 132. Like you, I have an easier time atributing it to JS’s culture, or even forgery, than that “giving people to people” is the true way the Lord works.
I might agree that my spouse and I gave oursleves to eachother in marriage. but not that a 3rd party gave one of us to the other, or has possession to take one of us away.
Comment by cchrissyy — March 6, 2006 @ 11:09 am
135 Ariel,
“but I trust that it will be.:” Me too. As far as the difficulties like the example you cite, life seems long to us now, but in the scope of eternity, it is, in fact, quite brief. I think that we all need to bear that in mind when we consider these kinds of dramatic situations. Of course that does not answer the question of what of the man who falls in love with her and marries her knowing that he can never be sealed. Is he consciously choosing a fate as a ministering angel? Is he her ministering angel? Now that’s romantic.
Per comment 125 as it originally appeared. I was off base putting such musings out in public before having considered them thoroughly. I retract any wondering on that score.
136 Stephen,
“Making a people out of people.” Brilliant, as usual.
137 Starfoxy,
See two comments up. It’s an eternal sacrifice, but, man, crazier things have been done in the name of love!
138 fMh Lisa,
A note on my platitudes: Firstly, they are *mine.* Secondly, they’re each a little like a mathematical theorem. Sure, I tend to just state the formula. If you want the proof, as in my reasoning, on any of them, I’ll gladly oblige, but for the sake of clarity and brevity, I tend to state the end opinions. (If I’m this verbose using the platitudes, imagine how bad I’d be if I wrote out all my reasoning behind them all every time!) Also, because I have laid a touch of art on them in their stating does not in any way detract from their veracity. Marginalizing disclaimers aside, I will express myself as I see fit, even if it includes what you would term a platitude. Should you require further clarification on any of them, you are welcome to ask, and I’ll happily walk you through my reasoning that lands me at that opinion.
To answer the question itself:
“Is there any way that you can make this work out in your mind to be anything but crazy unfair?” Of course not! It *is* crazy unfair, and, yeah, it completely breaks my heart for all that it is just a hypothetical situation. It should be pointed out that the same kinds of things can happen in 1:1 marriage, too, and so our discussion of these sisters’ fate is not entirely relevant to a debate on LDS polygyny.
There is, as there would be for just one woman, the hope that they would meet another man who could mesh with them as a family, to whom they could all be sealed (if the sealing w/BB is cancelled). There is the possibility that they never do, that they go on keeping house together through this life only to find themselves either still sealed to the good Reverend William Robert who has a lot of apologizing to do (and all the eternities to do it in), or they find themselves unsealed. They will either face eternity as ministering angels or they will be sealed to someone else during the Millennium or, or, or…We really have no way to know, as there are so many possibilities.
Something important to remember in such human drama hypotheticals is that such heartstring pulling is, in fact, confined to this life, and this life is nothing, less than a weekend away from home, in an eternal sense. Things that seem SO BIG in our tiny window here really will not carry as much weight in light of an eternal perspective. We have to rmember just how cut off from ourselves we are here. Our earthly ideas of fairness and the like really and truly are hampered by the fact that we only see this moment. When we pass again through the veil and are free to see things with our full mind, there will, undoubtedly be additional factors and possibilities to which we are now blind. What may seem cruelly unjust to us in the here and now, we may well find ourselves laughing at the memory of having been so bent out of shape over. If we confine our vision to this life, then yes, many things about the gospel seem unfair or even cruel. It’s up to each of us to maintain in our minds the caveat on our judgment that no matter how thoroughly we think it through in this life, we simply do not have the whole story. In other words, there are some things that only a celestial perspective, divested of this mortal veil, will reveal.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — March 6, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
116 Kaimi,
“Clearly a parent can divide love” No, it is not dividing love. You love each child fully, with your whole heart; there is no sum total to be portioned out. Emotions defy the mathematics of the concrete.
You know, playing chess blindfolded is hard. Playing three games at once was thought to be impossible (El Greco did it and people refused to believe it, even with the Pope as a witness).
Russian grandmasters can play more than two hundred games at the same time blindfold.
I think that love can be like that. Loving one person is hard. Adding to that (as when you have a child) is a real stretch, many people find it daunting. But at some point, love strengthens itself.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — March 9, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Stephen,
Your striking moments of brilliance insist to me that you are truly an inspired individual. Thank-you.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — March 9, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
Hello, I found this through Hugo’s blog. I linked this entry. Just thought I’d let you know.
I’d say that you left out a big part of the abuses that happen in the Fundamentalist communities in AZ and UT–the shunning of younger men, because human biology doesn’t lend itself so much to plural marriage.
That said, I do kind of wonder what polygamous Mormons think of Jesus’s own proclamations on marriage and adultery?
Comment by aldahlia — March 9, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
Not a day goes by that I don’t give thanks for the wonderful blessings of my religion. And each day I treasure it a little more, for I deeply believe in Plural Marriage.
Comment by Jan — March 10, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
Respond to comment # 15 bySeeth Rogers-
October 21,2005
Yes the early church leaders did teach that
plural marriage is essential for exaltation.
Ann Wilde wrote a book called “An Essential for
Exaltation.” You can get a copy at: Pioneer Press,3332 Ft.Union Blvd. Salt Lake City,Utah 84121. phone#(801)943-5651
Gurnie in North Carolina.
Comment by Gurnie Cook — March 12, 2006 @ 7:03 am
Naiah,
Here is the link you requested to the transcript of Larry King’s interview with President Hinckley.
I’m surprised to hear very little feed back on our living prophet’s opinion on this subject.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml
A reminder…he says about Polygamy, “I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.”
Comment by pellar — March 12, 2006 @ 8:15 am
My wife and I have been married for 11 years and have a young(ish) family. Active and had a fair share of callings etc. We have prayed about the doctrine of Plural Celestial Marriage. Studied the doctrine from the scriptures, and other best books of value. Discussed and deliberated our own feelings. Considered the many angles. Calculated the trials and costs. Tried to see the issue from the many perspectives….and we are agreed in intent and principle. If Polygamy was legalized, and the Lord reinstitutes into the Church once more - we would not hestitate to enter into the order if so permitted - we’re not fools nor perverts, nor are we spineless or brainwashed. Neither my wife nor I are blind obeyers, nor oppressed minorities. For us, we believe.
We seek the proliferation of human race under spiritual, moral and intelligent law. It is our desire to emulate the work and glory of our Parents in Heaven “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
If we found someone who believes and feels as us, with same desires and understandings…of one mind and heart, someone of the same Spirit and union - then we believe that we would be engaging in no less than the expanded sharing and increasing of our hearts, loves and eternal family, with eternal friends and companions.
Now the question is: Is the civil union law (for all its intents and purposes) the key to prepare the way for the legalization of Polygamy? The Lord works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform….
Comment by ML — March 13, 2006 @ 2:13 am
I think each of us must do what we know for ourself is right. The 12th article of faith was quoted by pellar above. That is an important thought. But Joseph Smith, through the devine inspiration of the Lord gave us those articles and Joseph Smith lived the fullness of the Gospel including Celestial Marriage.
Suppose the government passed a law against something we believed in–maybe that we could no longer pray. That is very possible. Prayer has already been banned from many schools and at least one Judge, U.S. Judge Roy Moore was removed from the bench for refusing to remove the 10 Commandments from his courtroom wall.
Would you honor and respect that law? Or like Daniel of old would you continue to pray and face the penalty of mortal man? Daniel knew that law wasn’t to God’s liking; that men can and do make laws that discredit the Lord and he knew what the consequences could be and he, just like we, had to choose.
However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms part 2 says, ” Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) Freedom of conscience and religion.”
So, for now at least, I can freely live the the religion of my choice.
Comment by Jan — March 13, 2006 @ 9:36 am
Jan, That was President Hinckley’s quote not mine.
Readers, What do you think about Hinckley’s Quote? He “condemn’s it”. What does that mean? He did not have to use the language “not doctrinal”. Why would he say this?
Comment by pellar — March 13, 2006 @ 9:57 am
I am still ruminating over the LKL interview, which I did read last night. (Thank-you pellar for the link!) I have not come to a final opinion on it. I am weighing different interpretations of his words on there. President Hinckley does say that he condemns the ‘practice,’ (not the ‘principle’) and that is the same distinction that I make in my own heart. The current practice is not doctrinally supported, by way of the 12th Article of Faith, and President Hinckley did say that he was speaking about the practice….That is simply the snapshot of my current state of thought on it. I am continuing to mull it over further. As I mentioned to you in email, pellar, I will write about it again when my thoughts, feelings, and prayers have come to fruition over on my site.
While my thining on it at this moment is not the same as yours, I do want you to know that I can totally see your take on it. If we simply take the sentence “it is not doctrinal” out of the context of the preceeding mention of him speaking specifically about the practice, it seems quite final.
I just can’t shake the feeling, though, that that is not a correct reading, for we know that it was commanded of God, and I can not imagine President Hinckley condemning Brother Joseph, Brother Brigham, and those others who heeded the call by saying that the principle itself was not doctinral.
Still thinking, though, not decided yet, but I wanted you to know I was chewing on it.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — March 13, 2006 @ 11:52 am
A responce to comment #2 by Elisabeth.
Why isn’t the Church filing lawsuits and actively
working to change the law of the land to extend marriage benefits to polygamous couples?
Elisabeth,I Have asked myself the same question.The Church has the money and lawyers
and the Utah Legislators on its side.If the Church wanted to live Celestial Plural Marriage it would not be difficult to change the Utah State Constitution (which forbids plural marriage forever)and Utah’s anti-bigamy law and to reverse Reynolds vs. United States(1879).
I have concluded that the early LDS Church went through a lot of persecution over Celestial Marriage and the Church today doesn’t want to
have to live it.The Church has persecuted and aided in the prosecution of people who try to live this holy law.
I recommend you read a book called 95 Theses,written by Ogden Kraut.Pioneer Press
Comment by Gurnie Cook — March 13, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
Naiah,
You are so diplomatic. The perfect blogger.
As is obviously apparent in my not so diplomatic posts, I really hate the idea of poygamy. There is no other single topic that can get me so riled. However, I have made made a sincere and honest approach to try and understand it throughout my life. (I’m a return missionary, a degree from BYU, I teach primary and I’m a Branch president’s wife.)
I do respect your opinion, Naiah, and my intention here is not to disagree with you, but to communicate to those women who are out there who feel degraded by the practice of polygamy and can not come to terms with it in their heart.
Reference comments 176 and 180
An eye opener for me on the topic was a class I took at BYU in which we discussed all of the taboo topics of mormonism from the mountain meadows massacre to blacks in the preisthood. My professor made the point that there were many many things that were recorded as doctrine that we know longer teach as correct. This does not mean that we were ever lead astray nor does it mean that the prophets were false. More so it emphasizes the need for continual revelation and the need for a living prophet.
Yes its been prophesied that polygamy might be reinstated some day. It was also prophesied that polygamy would never be stopped (by that evil government - you’ll have to read the text) in the first place. It was prophesied that the second coming would happen in Joseph’s lifetime. It was prophesied that blacks would NEVER receive the preisthood.
It is by ongoing revelation and guideance of our living prophet that we fix things and move on. If you think about it, the main body of revelation was recieved within the very early years of the church (site President Hinckley). Ever since then much of the recieved revelation has come in the form of fixing previously recieved revelation. (o.k. so this goes on and on with potential for another blog on “what is revelation?”).
President HInckley is our living prophet and he tells us what is right and wrong. I doubt that he condems past prophets. I do believe that in the forum of an interview he was able to communicate something that has long since needed to be comunicated. This was not a surprise question that caught him off guard (guests are informed as to which topics will be discussed in the interview). I think he chose his words wisely.
On another note… good reading …..PHD and BYU professor Valerie Hudson’s Women of Zion Women in Eternity. She has a chapter disconecting polygmay with celestial marriage in the eternities.
Comment by pellar — March 14, 2006 @ 8:06 am
pellar,
Do you understand that I, myself do *not* believe in the current practice of plural marriage?
Do you understand that I make no predictions as to whether or if it will ever be reinstated? All my talk about it being reinstated was simply saying that, if it were, I would be obedient, with little to no problem with it–that it is something that I, personally, could easily incorporate into my life. Nothing more. I’m not saying every woman should take it like I do–just that I do.
Do you understand that the point of my post was to say that we must not condemn the morality (there has been much talk, even from LDS, about polygamy being tantamount to gay marriage, etc.) of the idea (the ‘principle’) of polygamy as we have neer been given revelation to do so? All the revelation that we hae been given says, simply, that we do not practice it anymore. OD-1 mentions reasoning very much along the lines of what Joseph Smith gave in what is now the 12th Article of Faith. There has never been revelation worded such that this principle is labeled as a perversion, a deviance, or something to be reviled.
So, I don’t know what you are reading in to my words as something to argue with, but that’s where I stand. Sure, we differ on how we would feel if it were to be reinstated (a BIG if), and my heart would go out to you in such a situation, but really that’s about it. I do not believe that those in the church, who believe themseles to be part of the pristhood organization as it stands with President Hinckley at its earthly head can, in any sense of obedience, take upon themselves this practice. Obedience to revelation is key.
Interpolating our own feelings into divine revelation is dangerous, and leaves us in a state outside what could be termed strict obedience, as in our minds we have altered the revelation and so we are not being obedient to the original revelation given, but rather to our own ‘version’ of it. The revelations on this matter state simply that we no longer practice it; they never pass judgement on it. That is all that I am saying with this.
We both believe in obedience to ongoing revelation, and that is the core issue here.
Comment by Naiah — March 14, 2006 @ 10:03 am
Naiah,
I truly didn’t mean to direct my entire comment toward you, and I’m sorry if it seemed that way. Like I said I am more interested in communicating to those whose hearts might suffer thinking about polygamy. I value your opinion and even envy you for how you can make peace with this issue. You state clearly and thoughtfully your belief, making it impossible for me to misinterpret all those things you mention above.
Again, I apologize.
Comment by pellar — March 14, 2006 @ 10:20 am
I don’t see how a “feminist” could love polygamy as it’s abusive to women and girls. To me, the idea of being part of a harem of wives is hell, and not heaven.
Comment by Adrienne — March 14, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Polygamy does not have to be, and is not always abusive. Abuse is a problem unto itself Adrienne, that is not in any way confined to polygamous families. By the weight of sheer numbers, it is a plain fact that there are more abusive monogamous fathers, husbands, etc in the world.
I would have little desire to be part of a harem, myself, but a loving family full of respect and kindness in which there happen to be sister-wives also loving my husband, I could deal with, but I do not know, luckily for you, if that would ever be required of us in this lifetime.
As for my status as a feminist, the jury’s still out on that one. It’s a loaded term, and not one that I am sure yet whether or not it applies to me. I am, no doubt, what the feminists say we women should be, but I do not know if I hold with all of their base assumptions. I am not repressed or oppressed in any way. I am self aware, desperately self-honest, capable, strong, self-actualized, and any other buzzwords that just plain mean that I know who I am and what I want and how to go about getting it in honest and healthy ways. I buy no one’s preconceptions of what I can or should be, and I see nothing wrong with celebrating myself, my accomplishments, and my potential. I was invited to write for this site; I am not the owner of it.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — March 14, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
Sorry, this is a total threadjack, but I wanted to say Naiah, that I appreciated your temple post. (I just checked out FMH for the first time in about a week and missed my chance to comment on your post.) Obviously, I had a very different experience in the temple, but I’m happy that you find goodness and peace there.
A big part of me envies this reaction you have, but in some strange way, another part of me doesn’t want to get to the point where I am content with the ceremony. My deep seated beliefs about the equality of men and women in marriage are a huge part of my self-identity, and I am afraid that if I peacefully accepted the ceremony as is, I would be abandoning that part of myself. But regardless, I’m happy for anyone who finds peace and joy in life, even if it’s not in a way that resonates with me personally.
Comment by Caroline — March 15, 2006 @ 1:13 am
185 — You’ve overstated the situation. Plural marriage isn’t inherently abusive to anybody. Singular marriage certainly hasn’t proven to be inherently non-abusive either.
I think you also might want to research what harems actually were like (what we’ve been told about them is about as accurate as what Baptists are told about us) before you go trashing them.
And I”m going to ask you to pay attention to the name of this domain and expect to get a slightly nuanced approach to feminism, Mormonism and housewife-ism around here. Probably not what you’re expecting from any one of those things. I haven’t been here long, but I’ve picked that much up.
Comment by Blain — March 15, 2006 @ 1:39 am
While I do believe in most of what you said, I do want to correct you on one thing the Proclamation does state quanties when it says ” Marriage between A Man and A Woman–that would be singular. Polygamy is totally and utterly wrong unless it is commanded by God and practiced ONLY under his guidelines, authorities, and within his boundaries
Comment by Kimberly — March 29, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
okay it doesnt say one man and one woman but you said in your post men and women and it doesnt say that either it says man and woman—-Singular
Comment by Kimberly — March 29, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Given that there are 190 comments on this thread, I’ll go ahead and repeat that polygamous marriage is actually marriage between a man and a woman, just several such marriages.
My only point in relation to the Proclamation is that it is often cited as an argument against plural marriage, when in fact it just plain is not. It does not say anything, either way about it. It neither expressly nor implicitly supports or decries it. So, really, the Proclamation has no bearing on a discussion of this principle, as it simply does not address it.
To reiterate the point of this post again, it is that all we are given from Lord by way of revelation is simply that we do not practice, and are not to practice this principle. There is nowhere written or stated that that there is anything morally wrong with polygamy. It would be disloyal to our own past, a past full of great and godly people who lived in obedience to this commandment as it was given to them. Modern ’sensibilities’ and cultural biases aside, we are not told that the Lord frowns upon it, and therefore we must not inject our human cultural belief into doctrine. This is true of any principle.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — March 29, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
“you said in your post men and women ”
I’m sorry, but I did not. I quoted directly from the Proclamation?: “man and woman.” (I literally copied it from mormon.org)
Comment by Naiah Earhart — March 29, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
My thoughts have once again turned to this very thought-invoking site.
In our marriage system, marriage does not conclude with death, but continues on throughout all eternity.
“Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. . .” –Matt. 16:19
Unlike the many heinous affairs men so often have, which they conceal from their families and which much of the world turns a blind eye to, I knew, when my husband and I were married, that there would possibly be other ladies enter our lives. I knew that each would be just as dear and precious and each child equally as important and honorable as my own.
I understood that as did the wives of my husband who were married to him before I entered their lives. I knew that it would not be easy to face a world which looks down on us and treats us inferior, simply because our belief is not to their liking, However I chose to live as I do because it is a very important and sacred part of my belief.
I know that according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus came to earth of a polygamous lineage; some of His progenitors being polygamous children. And yes, He too was scorned.
“Jesus Christ” said Joseph F. Smith, “never omitted the fulfillment of a single law that God has made known for the salvation of the children of men. It would not have done for Him to have come and obeyed one law and neglected or rejected another. He could not consistently do that and then say to mankind, ‘follow me’. ”
-Marriage, Ballard-Jenson
Elder J.M. Grant quotes from Celus, “The grand reason why the gentiles and philosophers persecuted Jesus Christ was because He had so many wives. . .”
“The grand reason, continues Elder Grant, “of the burst of public sentiment in Anathemas upon Christ and His disciples, causing His crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy. . .A belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and His followers.”
J. of D. 1:345-6
Comment by Jan — May 24, 2006 @ 10:54 am
I would like to see polygamy legalized. But, all things aside, I do not feel it will be the LDS Church ushering it in again. Society will.
I have many friends that are women in the Church. Some of them I have found that we as a cople would get along with very well in a polygamous marriage. But I love the Church, so therefore I do not “stray” from what the heirarchy has decided.
My wife and both have discussed this issue together. It is one of the most demanding “jobs” that a man could possibly undertake. I would like to see any righteous man who loves his wife(s), try and say he actually “rules the roost”. Only through the priesthood could this be possible.
I am a rebellious sort though…. I like what I like. Tattoos and ear rings too. Although my wifey draws a line on things, I do not feel that they are an act of rebellion on my behalf. I am 36 years old. I think I am old enough to know what I like and dislike. No, I do not have any of the aforementioned, but I will……
I think this is a very balanced article. but I feel that what is missing is the love of each other and for another person that can actually develope. Yes even today. For another woman. While married to your wife. It does not mean you are going to commit adultery. If you’re living high standards, you know what I mean. It just means that there could have been the possibility to enjoy more companionship as a larger, more extended family.
We have two friends right now that we love as a part of our family. They are both single and both with children. Believe me we have talked about the “what it would be like for us” scenario of living in a polygamous relationship wit these two. At times I would probably want to end my own suffering, at times they would probably want to end my suffering for their sakes!
I would support a bill that allowed polygamy to be legalized.
My opinion is thus….Despite what Church officianados have said about polygamy not being doctrinally sound, well, that puts a whole new wrench in what the Book of Mormon teaches. It says that in the day Seven women shall ask a man to take away their reproach. Hmmm…..
Is their a contradictory statement made by the Book of Mormon? or the Church? Or, is it a bunch of old guys promoting an agenda to satisfy public persecution and torment?
I can say that? It is only an opinion. Church leaders are inspired men…..and women.
Lots of love to line up for!
Davey Boy - the Indian Outlaw
Comment by David E. Miller — September 13, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
The journal of Wilford Woodruff reads:
” During the month of January, 1880, I was at Sunset, Az. ……. trying to establish a branch of the united order at that place. At this time the government, through its officers, were using every means in its power to enforce the Edmunds-Tucker and anti-polygamy law with the evident intent on the part of the officers to break us up as an organized community. Being away from President Taylor and my Quorum, I felt deeply distressed in mind concerning our conditions as a people. While thus exercised I went into “the Wilderness”, a region of country called by this name, situated about 40 miles west of Sunset; and while there I stopped with two young men who were herding sheep . . . . I remained with them 10 days, reading the revelations of God as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, and praying fervently unto the Lord to reveal to me His mind and will concerning Zion. On retiring to bed on the night of the 25th of January, 1880, I found myself wrapped in a vision, and the next morning the following revelation was given to me of the Lord which I wrote at the time:
Thus saith the Lord unto my servant. Wilford Woodruff, I have heard thy prayers and will answer thy petition. I will make known unto thee my will concerning the nations who encumber the land of promise and also concerning Zion and her inhabitants.
I have already revealed my will concerning this nation through the mouth of my servant Joseph, who sealed his testimony with his own blood, which testimony has been in force upon all the world from the hour of his death.
What I the Lord have revealed in that testimony and decreed upon this nation and upon all the nations of the earth, shall be fulfilled, saith the Lord of hosts. I the Lord have spoken and will be obeyed. My purpose shall be fulfilled upon this nation and no power shall stay my Hand. . . . . ”
J.S. said, “If we do not embrace that principle soon the keys will be turned against us, for if we do not keep the same law our Heavenly Father has we cannot go with Him. The word of the Lord to us was that if we did not obey that law we could not go where our Heavenly Father dwelt. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep the higher law.”
The Lord has given many revelations upon the subject of plural marriage. Two of them are in the Doctrine and Covenants–Section 131 and 132, but even with so much information this principle has been abandoned by millions. And those who continue to practise it have been ostracized. H.J. Grant stated on one occasion, that he had fasted and prayed for information but that “the heavens were as brass over me.” What else could the Lord say? He had already spoken and was notified that His law would no longer be obeyed, thereby shutting out any further comunication
Each of us has our free agency to choose for him or herself and each will have to account for the choices we make.
Comment by Jan — October 1, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
The Anne Wilde interview on Mormonstories was excellent. Ann is an independent fundamentalist mormon and she details the history of early polygamy in the lds church at the time of Joseph Smith in the first part of her interview.
www.mormonstories.org Just skim down the page to find it.
Polygamy is a bugbear for countermormons, They bring it up to imply that Joseph Smith was lustful which is far from the truth.
Comment by why me — February 3, 2007 @ 9:54 am
I agree with #191 that “polygamous marriage is actually marriage between a man and a woman, just several such marriages”. LDS plural marriage does require the first wife to consent to the 2nd marriage, but that does not make her a party to the 2nd marriage. The consent would simply be her waiving her rights to an exclusive marriage. (sorry for thinking like a lawyer; law school is designed to leave us unable to think in any other way
).
The prophesy that seven women would lay hold of a man, etc., does not mean that it’s right.
Jacob 2 condemns not only polygyny, but also condemns the man of the church who twists the scriptures to justify it, breaking the hearts of his wife and children.
As for this silly talk that the church has lost authority since following the 1st proclamation, consider “by your fruits ye shall know them.” Was what the church accomplished under John Taylor so much greater and more dazzling than what has been accomplished under subsequent prophets? Do the Kingston’s cult, the Lafferty brothers, or the paranoid little people of Arizona City look to you like God’s kingdom on earth? Does God tell us to ditch our extra adolescent boys upon the mercies of the street, or to flog our young daughters for refusing to commit incest?
As for the veil, I cannot forget how that was used to keep that young kidnapped girl right in SLC under the noses of everyone that was looking for her face. Never again.
Comment by Christian — February 3, 2007 @ 10:59 am
I think that polygamy and the “rightgeousness” of it was all made up by horny men who just wanted extra women around to be able to have sex with whenever he wanted and to have a new and more exciting wife everytime he got tired of the old one.
I think the women have it drilled into their heads that “it is God’s will” to be part of a polygamous marriage. It is NOT “God’s will” or “requirement” to be involved in a polygamous marriage in order to be able to go to heaven or make God proud in any way if you do. I think God is more concerned that you abide by the ten commandments and have a good heart and/or are a nice person and live a decent life and treat others decently.
And, I don’t think God would “force” a polygamist family onto anyone - because think about it - in what way would that make you more holy - it does NOT. It just doesn’t make any sense to say that God in anyway had it as a requirement. As for those people (Solomon, and others in the Bible, etc.) who did have/acquire more than one wife - maybe God did or did not punish some of the people for it or maybe he forgave them or just tolerated it, in some instances - but I know he NEVER had it as a requirement.
Also, I could never be in a marriage with more than one wife, I would probably go crazy with jealousy and worry - especially the thought of another woman having sex with my man! I mean who want to share - I certainly don’t! And forget about his sisterhood (which probably is just glorified or doesn’t even really exist), if you need help with the house or kids, why not ask the grandparents or your siblings to help out sometimes or just hire a nanny/housekeeper for God’s sake!
Maryana
Comment by Maryana — February 14, 2007 @ 4:00 am
I have a really hard time with that (I hope apocryphal) story about Joseph Smith supposedly thinking that God was going to kill his child if he refused to enter a plural marriage. It reminds me of something else that I’ve heard attributed to Joseph Smith — that some revelations are from God, some from man, and some from the devil.
I honor my two greatgreatgrandmothers who entered into plural marriages after their first husbands died. They had children (my own ancestors) to feed and raise, and I believe that they made the best choice they could under the circumstances. Children need a father as well as a mother. But in my heart I cannot extend that into a license for married men to run around marrying young “virgins.” Not to mention all the ghastly secrecy.
Comment by Christian — February 14, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
It is so true that God does not ‘force’ anyone to do anything. Free will is extremely important to Him. It is also true that Celestial Marriage is not for everyone. We need to find what is important to us and live the best we can.
I listened to a talk show one time where religion was being discussed and of course there were words of unkindness spoken. Tender feelings were hurt as insults were thrown. And then someone said the words that I will always remember.
“They hate one another for the love of God”
If that doesn’t touch a person’s heart I don’t know what does.
I learned about hate when I was very young. After a summer vacation I eagerly anticipated returning to school–about third grade. I stood at the bus stop happily visiting and laughing with the other children when the bus pulled up. Each began climbing through the open door and up the steps. When my turn came I too stepped through the door and onto the bus. But the minute the new bus driver saw me, he ordered me off. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing and looked at him to see if in fact he really was speaking to me, then once more the ugly words spewed from his mouth “Get off my bus!”
In time we learned of his hatred towards our religion. And also in time I learned that not everyone hated me.
But it makes about as much sense to suggest that because some people who live PM are cruel or abusive then all are as to say the same about any other way of life or religion.
I am not that way and I know many who are kind, caring,honest, upright and good people. However we still must hear words as I heard on that Fall day long ago–”Get off my bus!”
Comment by Jan — February 19, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Amazing that some sick louse would take out his contempt for PM on a 3rd grade child. Me, I just want to see that old Kingston satanist kingpin prosecuted for conspiracy to commit rape and incest.
Comment by Christian — February 20, 2007 @ 1:07 am
Having joined the Church some 25 years ago, polygyny recently began to attract my curiousity. I read some books, googled some web sites, and gained a little understanding (i hope).
The blog that seemed to be by hte happiest poly women, was by a group of five wives, non-members, in Italy. Three of them were very close friends in their youth, and when one began to anticipate that the great guy she was dating might soon pop the question, she was at once delighted and demoralized that marrying her guy would take her from her girlfriends, especially as each of them married in turn. They were tearfully sobbing together over the looming breakup of their very close friendship, when one suggested that they all marry the great guy. So the three of them proposed to him. It took him back for a while, but he agreed and they all got married. After some years and many children, they have added in two additional wives. The first three married their husband 27 years ago. They seem very happy in their tones on their blog.
The polygymous sect women say, “We believe that every woman should be free to marry the good man of her choice.” Obviously, they don’t believe that every man is a good man, so that freedom means they’ll have to double up.
So the arguements for poly are: 1. It supports a closeness between women that they need or greatly enjoy. 2. That it solves the numbers game, that there are more good women than good men, by giving each woman the freedom to marry a good man. (to bad for the lesser men thus left out.)
The main arguement against seems to be jealousy, followed by some form of “it’s gross.” Or just plain, “I’d never do that.”
Also, there are polygymous sects now that have adopted male domination to a high degree, where daughters are assigned by their fathers or a ‘prophet’ to marry a man selected for them and often at a very young age. These distasteful and illegal practices are clearly repugnant, but are parts of these sects’ religions and thus associated with their practice of polygymy, but not intrinsically a part of polygymy. We should keep these things seperate in our considerations.
Comment by Trueheart — April 25, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
I think that one common misconception is that all people living plural marriage today dress strangely - ie - the one group that is on tv - the FLDS. Keep in mind, they are one group of many many groups. On top of that most people in plural marriage are apparently what is termed “independents” - in other words belong to no group and look just like your next door neighbor. I think that is one point that Big Love brought out very well The FLDS group is one of two groups that I am aware of that stick out in a crowd – even tho the media tends to portray all people in plural families as part of that group – that is simply not the case. Many women in plural marriages are professionals working as nurses, administrators, writers, teachers, lawyers, artists and even entertainers to mention a few. So the stereotypes just don’t hold up to what is really going on out there.
Comment by AtPeace — April 27, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
one more thought… someone toward the top was asking for some sort of reference material. For anyone who has a mind to and the time to read here is a long list of plural marriage quotes.
http://www.4thefamily.us/files/active/1/plural%20marriage%20references%20long.txt
This can be download to your computer so you can print them and not have to be online to read. Special attention is given to the House of Israel (Jacob) - Israel’s house - the House of Jacob - his house that was 12 sons (tribes) and his daughter Dinah from his four wives, Leah, Rachel, Zilpah and BIlhah. This was, apparently, the most blessed family in the Old Testament. His family is also greatly blessed in Revelations.
Comment by AtPeace — April 27, 2007 @ 9:39 pm