Why do we have such an aversion to polygamy? I can think of three major objections: 1. It destroys the romantic intimacy of a couple. 2. It feels sexually unholy, akin to promiscuity. 3. It is unfair to women.
Different cultures and time periods will object to polygamy for different reasons. For example, in Joseph Smith’s day, a fairly puritanical culture, they would have seen polygamy as sexually unholy. But they wouldn’t care as much that it was unfair to women, as those days were pre-feminist. Today, the primary objection among Gentiles, is that it is unfair to women, but they wouldn’t care so much about the sexual aspect. Today’s LDS would probably object to it primarily because it destroys our romantic notions of eternal intimacy with a single companion. Understanding these objections is important, because it will influence how we approach and define our polygamous heritage both to members and non-members. I’d like to take each objection and examine possible responses to each. These arguments do not necessarily reflect my own views, but are simply various ideas as I try to come to an understanding of this difficult topic.
The Romantic Objection: Violated Intimacy
The doctrine of eternal marriage was originally presented within a polygamous framework, as a ritual necessary for people to enter the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. But today’s LDS have adopted the Western cultural notions of “eternal love” alongside the ritual of eternal marriage, which is a monogamous, romantic, possessive love that transcends both death and all polygamous competitors. It is nearly impossible for a modern person to retain notions of both romantic intimacy and polygamy.
Here is a possible argument to this objection: In the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the highest expressions of love and intimacy are between God and His children. God’s love is not diminished by having billions of children to whom He must spread His love. To God, each individual is the lost sheep for whom He leaves the 99. His love, by virtue of being infinite, cannot be divided or diminished. Likewise those inheriting the Celestial Kingdom, become gods themselves, and their love grows to an infinite degree. Celestial polygamy would thus be no compromise to divine intimacy between gods and goddesses. Even here on earth, children do not often report that having siblings diminishes the love of their parents for them.
A second argument against the romantic objection could be centered on resisting covetousness and possessiveness. The Law of Moses says, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property.” The Doctrine and Covenants says, “thou shalt not covet THY OWN property.” This reflects the higher Law of Consecration. We are taught that everything we have is a gift from the Lord, and must fight against the natural feelings of possessiveness we have towards our own property. Let’s take the law to it’s logical conclusion regarding polygamy. The Law of Moses says “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife (or husband).” The higher law would be “thou shalt not covet THY OWN WIFE (or husband.)” Thus polygamy works in concert with the Law of Consecration to help wives (and husbands in the case of polyandry) resist possessiveness and covetousness.
The Puritanical Objection: Sexually Unholy
We are taught that sex is sacred and that it must only be practiced within the confines of holy, monogamous matrimony. We imagine that this law is universal, intrinsic, binding, and must never be compromised with. Breaking this law is considered a sin 2nd only to murder. Thus we recoil from polygamy in horror. “Thou shalt not commit adultery, or anything like unto it.” The idea of many wives sounds promiscuous.
However, it could be argued that God has in the scriptures and in church history, at various times, advocated polygamy, concubinage, celibacy, monogamy, and polyandry. Clearly God’s particular laws regarding sex are NOT universal, but vary from culture to culture, time to time. However, sexuality is universally subject to some kind of taboo or restraint. This is what makes sex sacred, not the act itself, but to restrain it and consecrate it. At different times, it may be consecrated to monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, or celibacy. For a man to practice polygamy is not to give free reign to his sexual passions, but rather to spread that passion equally upon a set of women to whom he is unequally attracted. This could be as great a sacrifice as consecrating all of his sexuality to one woman only.
The Egalitarian Objection: Unfair to Women
This is the primary objection to modern, non-LDS. The modern world is sexually permissive, and is perfectly happy with multiple partners among single consenting adults. But polygamy allows men to have multiple partners, but denies the same to women. Thus it is seen as an abhorrent crime against female equality.
The best argument to try and quell this objection is to bring up Joseph Smith’s polyandry. When Gentiles learn that Joseph Smith married other men’s wives, and that in early Mormonism some women had more than one husband, their perspective on Joseph Smith completely changes. They no longer see him as a lascivious patriarchal overlord, and begin to see him as an admirable sexual revolutionary. However, this argument is not going to impress most LDS, who don’t want to confront the idea of eternal polyandry.
There is another more difficult argument to make, which is that women are more naturally monogamous, and men are more naturally polygamous. Because of this fact, polyandry would not be a fair solution, because women would be less inclined to have multiple partners anyway. Polyandry caters more to the male promiscuous instinct than to the female instinct, which is to find a single partner to love and protect her. Thus you might be able to argue that polygamy cannot be said to be unfair to women, because it respects this gender imbalance.
Additionally, one might argue that polygamy can facilitate female fulfillment in other ways. In the modern world, monogamous mothers find it difficult to balance their domestic desires with their desires to find career fulfillment. Polygamy allows some wives to have careers while others take care of domestic duties. Likewise, sister wives can divide up domestic and career duties into part-time work, allowing complete educational and career fulfillment for all, without compromising childcare. Polygamous wives in early Mormonism were quite progressive, with Brigham Young preaching that women ought to go out and have careers like men, and educating his own daughters back East. This might not have happened without polygamy, as women’s domestic role would have been seen as more essential without the help of other sister-wives.
Questions:
- Are there other objections to polygamy?
- Do you find any of these arguments compelling?
- Are their other apologetic arguments for polygamy that might satisfy concerns of those inside and outside the church?
Some of my closest friends are polygamists. You don’t know what you are talking about. Just sayin’.
Um, Angie? Can you enlighten us more? Just sayin’.
It is nearly impossible for a modern person to retain notions of both romantic intimacy and polygamy. I strongly disagree based on personal experience.
It could be argued that anthropologically speaking monogamy is unfair to males. Poly relationships are taboo because we are jealous and possessive and sex amplifies that jealousy and possessiveness. People are often killed for less. But I believe a theocracy based culture of polygamy (meaning both polygamy and polyandry) has the potential over a few generations to generally refine that selfishness out of a people.
“However, it could be argued that God has in the scriptures and in church history, at various times, advocated polygamy, concubinage, celibacy, monogamy, and polyandry. Clearly God’s particular laws regarding sex are NOT universal, but vary from culture to culture, time to time.” OR, you could even more easily argue that man has in the scriptures and in church history instituted polygamy, not God.
“When Gentiles learn that Joseph Smith married other men’s wives, and that in early Mormonism some women had more than one husband, their perspective on Joseph Smith completely changes. They no longer see him as a lascivious patriarchal overlord, and begin to see him as an admirable sexual revolutionary.” OR they see him as a reprehensible lecher who sent men on missions so he could marry their wives behind their backs.
One more problem I see with polygamy is that it is an elitist system or was as instituted in the early church days. Church leaders and their cronies had access to wives. Wealthy men would be better polygamous candidates. And as we see in the FLDS, it marginalizes surplus males. It’s a math problem. 51% are women, 49% are men. Those numbers are much too close to have polygyny as the norm, so it could only ever be a handful of the wealthiest and most powerful men who could practice it, and the more they practice it, the more it marginalizes the young, those who don’t have power, and those who don’t have status and connections.
If you cannot imagine a single Heavenly Mother of the entire human race — Worlds without end style — eternally sealed to multiple husbands by the power of a holy priesthood fashioned after the order of the only begotten Daughter of God, who redeemed us all from the Fall of Eve, and not feel such proposal seems any less “Mormon” than the obverse more commonly accepted by readers of Journal of Discourses, then you do understand perfectly well how absurd standard Mormon polygamy as an eternal doctrine feels to me.
Great blog article. Good discussion points from others too. I see all points and have no solid opinion. Perhaps being in my marriage longer will help….at 9 years, I’d love a decent sister wife and I’m pretty open minded and very slow to judge others so it might work if only my husband would agree! Wish my kids could have more siblings/cousins close by. Wish another mom and I could have each others kids to love and more personal freedom to leave kids with the other wife to get out more. I learn so much from other women.
Angie, I would also like to hear your experience, as admittedly, I don’t have any personal experience, nor do I know any polygamists personally.
Howard, I would also like to hear more about your personal experience with poly relationships. Are you saying that you personally are able to have love for two women at the same time, and that both of those women feel fulfilled by that love?
Hawkgrrrl, admittedly, when I explain polyandry to non-Mormons, I try to spin it in a way that sounds more favorable to Joseph Smith, since the reality is so much more complicated and seems so wrong. Having a testimony of Joseph Smith is tough, because you can’t make the obvious assumptions when looking at the evidence. You have to try to find a righteous reason for what he was doing. My theory is that Joseph Smith believed that eternal polyandry was an even higher law than polygamy, a sort of sexual Law of Consecration, but that he didn’t practice it in it’s fulness, usually sticking with polygamy, and not having sexual realtions with his polyandrous wives.
Also, you are right that fundamentally, the math does not add up to practice polygamy. Only if there are fewer men in the Celestial Kingdom. Some Mormons argue that men are more wicked generally, and so there will be a surplus of women in heaven. But I think that men are simply at a disadvantage because of their DNA and excess testosterone in their mortal body, but that when judged based upon what they were given, they will be equally righteous compared to women. That is why I see polyandry as the only viable eternal solution, because it also allows women to have more than one husband.
Richard_K, thanks for your brilliant comment, which points out the absurity of this entire question.
Jenonator, thanks for your perspectives. I know some women who feel like you, and some who would absolutely abhore the idea. But I think many women bond with other women in ways that give them more personal satisfaction than they even get from romantic relationships. Polygamy fascilitates this natural tendency. But it leaves men out. They would feel so overwhelmed with the excess females in their life, that it would be hard for them to take time out to have male friends. However, the polygamous David in the Bible did it with his friend Jonathan “Thy love surpasses the love of women.”
Interesting discussion. Put me in camp number 3 – it’s unfair to women. I’m not much of a romantic. I’m with hawkgrrrl on the numbers thing.
I’ve been thinking off and on recently about the way in which our current lds culture romaticises the nuclear family, and I really think we do, especially when we talk about eternal families and eternal marriages. Not least because in heaven we’ll all be adults, and the kids will have left home. I tend to view family as a small laboratory, where we get to practice at getting on with other people, working together with them, caring for them, loving them, and becoming one. Raising kids to become functioning adults is only one aspect of that. The concept of eternal family provides the beginnings of the links that will link the whole human family. Ultimately, we are all God’s children, and we are all commanded to be one.
I have a hard time envisaging a heaven of couples, or in which that marriage relationship is absolutely paramount. Likewise, I have a hard time seeing HF as male, with a wife, so….
Another request from me for Angie to clarify. Are you for or against polygamy?
I think it’s quite possible that there’s more than one Heavenly Mother, just to really throw a wrench into the works. “. . . truth eternal/Tells me I’ve a mother there” doesn’t mean it’s the same one as yours.
(*cringing*)
I think that the numbers objection falls by the wayside when/if, as has hardly ever happened, plural marriage is viewed as a contract between free persons freely entered into, rather than an arrangement by Church leaders, or parents, or the FLDS Prophet/Pedophile. Add to that its eternal sealing appeal and the preponderance of faithful, active women to faithful, active men, and the “51% of the human race” business no longer matters in God’s terms.
The notion that it’s somehow demeaning to women also goes away if it’s regarded as a free contract. In its best forms, it was (as Nate mentions and some early LDS experience bears out) actually somewhat liberating for women; at least, it could provide a helpful family social and economic safety net in hard times.
The idea that it’s sexually unholy is sheer cultural nonsense, if and when it is commanded of God. The BoM makes it clear that monogamy is the divine norm, but if the Lord wishes, he can direct otherwise, and he clearly has in various times and places. There’s nothing inherently evil, unholy, or wrong about a multiplicity of spouses.
Oh, and to add this: I think it’s quite possible that our panicky evangelical brethren are correct, and the courts will soon be striking down laws against multiple marriages on the same grounds used to strike down laws against same-sex marriage – that the state has no compelling reason to interfere in or prevent consenting arrangements between adults.
At that time, of course, the LDS Church will forbid its members from entering into such contracts. That’ll show those Bible-thumping bigots. 🙂
Nate,
Your question is a good one but a bit naive, it is much more complicated than that. Monogamous marriage and poly relationships are opposites with regard to personal growth. However, neither is a panacea.
Monogamous marriage is inherently growth limiting. TBM’s may argue I have no idea what I’m talking about here, it requires a lot of growth to stay with one person while maximizing that relationship. Actually I agree it does require a lot of relationship growth but the rate of personal growth is very slow compared to the potential of poly relationships. The reason is monogamous marriage is specifically designed around maximizing the *illusion* of relationship security (which accrues major benefits to mortal families) via. commitment promises. However the majority of monogamous marriages are not free of affairs, half of married men and a quarter of married women *admit* to “cheating” which means well more than half of monogamous marriages are impacted by affairs. LDS “eternal” monogamous marriage attempts to take commitment a step farther by requiring garmies and threatening enforcement which may have a minor effect on the number of affairs, divorce rates and length of marriage. But they also encourage marring young which itself is a major personal growth limiter. Christ was not selfish, jealous or possessive but nearly all 20 year olds are and their brain won’t be fully formed for another 5 years. Add to this the inherent difference in emotional maturity of males vs females and I think it ought to be illegal for men to marry before age 30. But the church has them marrying at age 20. No one at age 20 is a complete person so this leaves these children looking for their “better halves” which is explained by the math (I’ve posted before) 1/2 person + 1/2 person = 1. So these two half people marry and “complete” each other which means their marriage is a symbiotic relationship. When it comes to personal growth and maturity symbiotic relationships are inherently unhealthy in part because it’s participants are incomplete to begin and worse symbiotic relationships *demand* that they remain symbiotic to maintain homeostasis! So following the honeymoon period of discovering the excitement of finally having sex and exploring each other the decade or so that follows is often a blur of raising children while living somewhat parallel lives. It is often the woman who begins to awaken from this hypnotic trance first, the kids are finally in school giving her some time to consider herself and often for the first time in her life she begins self discovery. As she begins to change he is threatened and he typically either attempts to reign her growth (to return to homeostasis) in or he hardens in his position and they begin to grow apart ultimately threatening the marriage. In the process typically neither learn selflessness. In this example he is being selfish, jealous and possessive. If one of them has an affair (which contrary to popular opinion can be a growth experience for both people in the marriage) they “cheated”. “Cheated” is language that justifies and enables the victim hood of the person who was “cheated on”. Even this language is growth limiting!
A poly relationship boldly threatens one’s selfishness, jealousy and possessiveness by allowing other relationships! This is a growth opportunity! If you begin to grow through your selfishness, jealousy, possessiveness and victim hood logic dictates that your relationship security comes not from a promise of fidelity, rather it comes from the substance of your intimate connection with the other(s) in four basic channels; physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual. Security also comes from not having all your eggs in one basket so if you begin to grow it may threaten one partner but not necessary another as they are at different levels of growth themselves. It becomes a relationship network. Holding the ideal concept of compersion (taking joy in your partner’s joy) as a goal helps keep things together. But few today are mature enough to actually keep a poly network together in practice I see it more as a multigenerational goal.
So in truth most adult personal growth and the shedding of selfishness, jealousy and possessiveness typically occurs through multiple relationships most commonly serial monogamy or not at all. If you wonder if you’re currently there, assuming you love your spouse just ask yourself if you would mind sharing them sexually with a very attractive partner. Few can answer yes to this. I took me a long time to get there.
Now to answer your questions yes I am able to deeply love more than one woman at a time. This seems to be more difficult for women to do, when involved with two men most seem to experience anxiety about it and feel they must soon choose but if they are permitted by culture to keep two men some will. Are multiple women fulfilled by that love? This depends on how complete they are as individuals, time together is typically been shared and this often creates a shortage and complaints but in a community like LDS polygamy this may not be a big a problem as sister wives share their lives and husband(s). Ultimately given inherent differences between men and women I strongly suspect it ends up more polygamy than polyandry giving rise to the imbalances Hawk talks about but those imbalances and the typical abuses of polygamy would be handled differently in a open society that discourages selfishness, jealousy, possessiveness and encourages Christlike selflessness as a main goal.
Compersion is a totally mind blowing concept to most chapel Mormons but it is far more Christlike than the current system. Most people get the idea of taking joy in their friend’s joy. They even get the idea of taking joy in their friend’s romantic and sexual joy. But the idea of taking joy in their mate’s romantic and sexual joy with another blows their circuit breakers! This is because sex triggers their selfish, jealous and possessive natures big time!
I do not believe LDS polygamy can fairly judged or adequately understood from the perspective of people who have not yet transcended these natural man traits. Their outrage and disgust for this era in church history is fueled by their personal naivete and immaturity and by the fact that LDS polygamy was never completed rather it was an imperfect work in progress.
Interestingly, in light of current sealing policies that allow deceased women to be sealed to all their husbands, we might just have a subtle shift and believe in polyandry. I have been surprised by the violent reception such a concept evokes in many Saints. I don’t know why some people are perfectly fine with a woman have serial husbands in mortality but the thought of her having them contemporaneously in the next life sets their teeth on edge.
Well, sheesh, if we’re going for passionless contractual arrangement and cooperative child-raising among women, why not just form all-female family groups with the men on hand for occasional stud service and maybe a check in the mail? Why have marriage at all?
I see monogamous families embedded in networks of extended family and friends for support as the best chance for happiness and growth for all involved in this life. Whether the family so defined sticks around in the next life is anyone’s guess–but if it doesn’t, I tend to side with Hedgehog in that I envision a more collective sealed unit of all human souls. Polygamy just doesn’t make any sense.
I find it very hard to believe that God would create this earthly situation where there is a relatively equal number of males and females, but then say that polygamy is really where it’s at. It doesn’t logically make sense. However, this is not me making an argument for monogamy.
Perhaps we are not meant to be committed to one another. If we look to animals, we see all different types of relationships – homosexual, monogamous, polygamous, polyandrous, etc.
However, if we were a polyandrous society, I see this being a very distinct disadvantage for women and children because although women would certainly be just as able as men to get it wherever they wanted, they are generally saddled with the burdens of children and all that entails. So, if it’s just about the sex, it sounds dandy I suppose, but taking into consideration everything that encompasses a ‘life’, if it’s one with children, monogamous relationships seem to be what would work the best, if people could remain faithful and committed, which seems to be a problem. But, maybe that’s where the real ‘growth’ comes in?
Howard, I would be curious to know how you feel poly relationships work with kids in the mix?
I just sorta assumed the whole commandment to “be one” had something to do with it, and under no thoughtful examination can I find that accomplished via polygamy. That being said I find merit to Hedgehog’s definition of a connected network of saints via sealings and possibly not a bunch of married couples running around.
I’m not sure Heavenly Father’s greatest love is for us – aren’t we supposed to love our spouse and prioritize them higher than our children? Would HF love HM most? I don’t know, I’m just asking.
And I don’t believe I have an obligation to explain Joseph Smith’s polygamy in any certain way. I agree that there’s no way a human alive can understand the mind/will of Joseph/God back then. But I can look at the facts and draw my own conclusions, and don’t need to try to paint rose colored glasses for others when they do the same. Believing polygamy (or the details of the practice of it) were a mistake and not the will of the Lord actually strengthens my faith in my God because of where I’m at spiritually; to believe all of that was done on purpose really drives me to agnosticism.
Also, the main problem I have with the Church’s new essay on lds.org is it’s insistence that none of these polygamist sealings/contracts were made under duress and any woman could have said no at any time. Riiiiiiiiiight. Because a 14 year old who’s been told that her sealing to JS will secure her and her family exaltation, that’s not coercion at all. Total free agency.
I agree. To insinuate that these early Plural marriages were contracts of free will is gross ignorance. Maybe read a little more.
Kt,
I don’t have personal experience with children in poly relationships but I hear a lot of abuse stories about growing up because I’m a life coach. The (partial) antidote to childhood abuse is also feeling loved as a child by someone who was less abusive, this is often the difference between recovery as an adult and a life of misery including suicide. The mother of larger families is often overwhelmed and at times suffering from post partum depression, she needs help for herself and with raising the kids. The children in this situation compete for what little attention there might be and since no attention is far worse than negative attention some of them learn to be bad. Once they become “the identified bad guy” it is unlikely they will loose this label later and they become the ongoing target of the parent’s frustration. The “it takes a village” approach to raising kids would offer support and mentors that are mostly missing in today’s suburban society.
I wouldn’t make too much of the nearly 50/50 gender mix as evidence against polygamy. Polygamy may be intended to be a temporary stepping stone to teach selflessness or a method to transition to network poly relationships or who knows what? We are at the infant level of gospel knowledge, it always amazes me that the LDS view point sees this very limited level of knowledge as final, complete, eternal and never changing! If this were true what is the 2/3 sealed portion of the plates about?
I’m interested in all that’s been said here, but my concern remains regarding the bit that seems to get left out-women’s sexuality. There seems to have been no recorded discussion from the plural wives either.
It would seem that under a polygamous relationship a woman would rarely have the opportunity for intercourse or even sexual play, requiring us as women to disown our own desire. Maybe at times in history this has been the lesser of the evils since women often died in childbirth and consequent infection, and infrequent sex then became a protection, which required that they disown their own desire. But women are sexual beings too, and it seems God planned it that way otherwise what would be the function of a clitoris? It seems that in some polygamous cultures the conclusion has been that the clitoris needs to be excised.
I’m hoping this is not too shocking a line of thinking for this conversation, because the conversation is incomplete without considering this. It remains my sticking point.
I think if any doctrine of male celibacy were being promoted in our church that would be unacceptable to us, but this doctrine requires me to consider an eternity of celibacy whilst basing my whole life here around marriage.
Some great comments. Sorry I haven’t been able to respond as I’ve been busy lately. I’ve been impressed by the variety of thoughts and approaches to the subject.
Howard, thanks for the excellent thoughts on the subject. I agree that poly relationships could have a refining influence. Speaking as a man however, I think that monogamy also has a refining influence, perhaps even more than polygamy could be, inasmuch as a man is polygamous instinctually. A couple marries when they are young and foolish, and they live with that crazy decision for the rest of their lives, which is a great trial. I don’t know if poly relationships would be an even greater and more ennobling trial, but for most normal people, I think monogamy does get people to a place much advanced from natural promiscuity.
IDIAT, I hope you are right about perspectives changing on polyandry. I really think polyandry needs to be included fully in the historical discussion of polygamy and it’s celestial ramifications, because it makes the whole thing a little less sexist, allows for equal numbers of men and women, and provides further evidence of the flexibility of family and sexuality in the eternal scheme of things.
Prezel says: “Well, sheesh, if we’re going for passionless contractual arrangement and cooperative child-raising among women, why not just form all-female family groups with the men on hand for occasional stud service and maybe a check in the mail? Why have marriage at all?” This is a good point that has not been explored so much, which is that polygamy actually diminishes the man’s role within the home, with the exception of his penis.
Kristine says: “I don’t believe I have an obligation to explain Joseph Smith’s polygamy in any certain way.” I think this is a great attitude, and one I am sort of coming to. In the end, I think that the church history of plural marriage simply teaches me to take a more flexible view of family and sexuality in the eternal perspective.
handlewithcare, you say that sex in polygamy will be very infrequent for the women. Well, it might be less frequent, but in monogamy men generally want sex more than women do, so polygamy might even things out a bit, maybe in some cases.
It always makes me cringe when having a sister-wife is mentioned as a benefit of polygamy. Because wives are just glorified maids who also get to have sex with the man of the house, right? I would like to live in a bigger house and have a fancier car so maybe we should add a brother-husband to the family who exists to bring more money into the household, and yay, I get to have sex with him too, which is great because I have a higher libido than my husband. Plus, it will be good for the kids to have another father figure around, especially since my husband is in the military and we’ve got another deployment coming up. And how great for my husband to have a guy to hang around with.
I am able to have a career and not compromise child care (what does that mean, anyway? my kids haven’t spent much time in day care, but they loved it a lot more than staying home with boring old me) because my husband and I worked things out together and supported each other’s educations and careers.
The Egalitarian Objection: Unfair to Women: While I have a huge problem with what looks to me like a thinly veiled license to cheat (not unlike the old practice of selling “Indulgences”) I see the practice as far more unfair to men than women. Well, unfair to common men who didn’t have the status or means to be rewarded with indulg…. wives.
“Brother Brown (Nose) has made it big in the business world. Let’s reward him with some extra wives!”
“But if Brother Brown has 3 wives, then neither Brother White nor Brother Green will have any wife…” because, arithmetic.
“Doesn’t matter. They aren’t successful in worldly finance, so they obviously won’t be successful in the economics of eternity. Success is as success does.”
“Maybe we should start throwing baby boys to the crocodiles, so that they don’t complain when they grow up.”
“Seems a little much. Maybe we can just *threaten* them with crocodiles so that they and their mothers learn not to complain. In fact, let’s threaten them with *Eternal Crocodiles*!
Well, this could go on and on. But you get my point. Why aren’t more men bugged about the obvious numbers flaw? Is it that male ego it-won’t-happen-to-me thing that I keep hearing about?
At the start, it generally bothers me that “polygamy” has become the stand-in word for “polygyny” [among LDS most specifically, but in the academic literature as well]. Every time I read people saying “polygamy is unfair to women”, my initial thought is “How?”, but then I remember that by “polygamy” they mean “plural wives only” — which I’d agree is unfair to women, favors economic inequality, and is inconsistent with the fact that male:female ratios come out 50:50 in the long-run (genetically), etc.
The level of intimacy and connection required to have the kind of “Zion” community we’re supposed to be striving for — one where what’s mine is yours [and yours, mine], where we all deal with each other based on the principle of charity, having no contention, imparting of our substance freely one with another, etc. – is something that naturally arises out of kinship [or family-bonds].
For example, my entire paycheck goes into one bank account that my wife is free to spend on whatever she feels will satisfy her needs and the needs of our children. Her and I share all things common, I impart of my substance [and my time, my attention, my affection, etc.] freely with her and our children, etc.
In other words, I think:
meaning that living in such a Zion-like community starts the moment a man and woman marry. There are two gathered in Christ’s name, and He will be in the midst of them [Matthew 18:20] – and the twain shall be one flesh [D&C 49:16].
This connectivity of marriage-partners is the key. However, if such a community starts with the basic-unit of a man and woman marrying [the basic unit, or building-block] – then how can we expect to grow the community on any different sets of principles [other than men and women marrying]? So that if I had two wives, then the second wife would receive just as free of access to my time, talents, resources, and love as my current wife does. Or if my wife received a second husband, then his entire paycheck would go into the same account, and he would devote the same level of intimacy to my wife and all her children as I do. Because that is the covenant-obligation we place upon ourselves in marriage.
regardless of what anybody thinks, we practice spiritual polygamy to this day. I divorced my first wife whom I married in the temple and ask for a sealing cancellation when wanting to be sealed to my current wife and was only granted the Sealing clearance meaning I am still sealed to my ex wife.
My wishes were not granted so I’m forced into polygamy as we speak.
So to say that polygamy is not doctrinal is dishonest.
Randy, did I miss something? Did anyone say it wasn’t doctrinal? I thought it was pretty clearly recognized that the Church had ceased the practice, but not disavowed the doctrine.
Iconoclast: Enter this into youtube ( http://youtu.be/9lsBFlcjE-8 ). Hinckley states it is not doctrinal on Larry King CNN. Your thoughts?
In re. #28, my thought is that President Hinckley is saying what the Church has always said: we did it when God commanded us to do it, and we stopped when he commanded us to stop. That’s the doctrine. The BS captions in that video, intentionally specious and misleading, are irrelevant to the history and practice of plural marriage in the Church. That video isn’t attempting to prove anything about the practice of polygyny among the 19th-century Saints; it’s an attempt to smear the modern Church with responsibility for the practice among the various fundamentalist breakaway groups of today. That is both incorrect and risible.
Church doctrine is, I think, very neatly summed up in Jacob 2:27-30. Our former practice of it is in accordance with that passage (“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts. . .”) and our ceasing the practice is also in accordance with that passage (“. . . otherwise they shall hearken unto these things”). That revelatory process is explained by President Woodruff in OD1, the excerpts from the addresses.
The notion that being sealed to more than one wife is the equivalent of being legally married to more than one is simply ludicrous. You could be excommunicated for adultery for sleeping with your ex, sealing notwithstanding. In addition, your notion that you are “forced into polygamy” is not at all true. You are not forced to live with her, sleep with her, support her (unless court-ordered), or in any other way maintain a husband-wife relationship with her. You are no longer married to her; she simply declined to have the sealing dissolved. If in the eternities you still can’t bring yourself to tolerate the woman, you won’t be forced to.
You don’t have to like plural marriage, or support our past practice of it. You can, in fact, think that it’s the foulest thing ever to blot the escutcheon of the Church. But it’s not hard to understand the doctrine. Since the above paragraph is kind of “Marriage and Mormonism 101,” I’m having trouble believing that you’re not being intentionally obtuse, to be perfectly frank. But just in case, I trust I’ve laid it out with sufficient clarity.
Here is my letter to my Stake President:
I have a concern that has truly bothered me for 5-6 years. About 2 years ago ***** and I were sealed in the ****** Temple. You may recall that the letter was received and you interviewed us prior to our sealing. We both had been married before in the ***** temple to our ex-spouses.
During the process of submitting our papers in our previous ward in *****, our stake president made it a very important point to educate us as to a sealing cancellation vs. a sealing clearance. He asked if I was ok with being sealed to my current ex-wife who is alive but not at all involved with the church since her infidelity and our divorce which a sealing CLEARANCE would do. I agreed with his advice to request a sealing CANCELLATION and NOT a clearance. He noted that clearly on our paperwork. He reminded me that if my ex-wife were to repent of her past and not be sealed to her current husband, the sealing covenant would remain and I would be sealed to her along with my current wife, Melanie.
When we received our letter from the church headquarters, I was granted a sealing CLEARANCE and not a CANCELLATION. This has truly bothered me. I have absolutely no desire in the world here or the hereafter to be a polygamist. I find the idea entirely reprehensible. The Book of Mormon expressly states that marriage should be between one man and one woman. However D&C 132 is all about the everlasting covenant of marriage which when revelation was received expressly meant polygamy. Brigham Young explicitly stated about polygamy: “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).
President Hinckley was interviewed by Larry King on CNN and stated the following regarding polygamy when asked by Larry King: Gordon B. Hinckley stated that polygamy is not doctrinal and stated further: ” I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think 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.”
My confusion is this: Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young explicitly stated doctrine that still exists in our DOCTRINE & covenants that plural marriage is necessary to get into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. But now, it isn’t.
So now, I’m a practicing spiritual polygamist currently because I wasn’t granted a CANCELLATION but only a clearance. I have absolutely no desire to be sealed to my ex-wife. I’m frustrated that President Hinckley says in isn’t doctrinal now but yet won’t give me a sealing cancellation. If it isn’t doctrinal, why do we practice it in our temples?
I can only put so many things on my “spiritual shelf”. This concern is ripping the screws out of the wall and my shelf is leaning.
I have read all I can from church publications, D&C 132 and the old 1835 D&C 101. If Christ didn’t institute it while in his life ( no reference to it in the B of M, the most correct book, and no reference in the bible) why am I required to live it spiritually? I asked my dad about this and he agreed that he believes polygamy will be required for salvation.
How do I reconcile the following:
1) President Hinckley says publicly: “Not doctrinal” but yet the Church only gives me a clearance?
2) President Hinckley contradicting Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who were both polygamists.
3) The Church’s lack of honoring my free agency in deciding if I want to be a spiritual polygamist. I asked for a Cancellation. Why was I not given a choice?
President ******, to you this may sound petty, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe this doesn’t happen all that often. Divorce isn’t a fun thing but as you have experienced it in your family, I’m grateful it is allowed and grateful for my wonderful current wife who is also concerned by this. This affects me today. It affects me spiritually. I did not sign up to be a polygamist either physically or spiritually. I need an answer to this.
Can you please ask if I can file for a reconsideration in my sealing clearance? This is my choice, my marriage, my spiritual future and I would like to decline to be a spiritual polygamist.
I am interested in your thoughts.
END OF LETTER
Anyone have any thoughts about this. I am truly trying to find a way to wrap my heart around the church’s position on this as I have personal reasons. I struggle to know that I am a spiritual polygamist as I speak. Uggg. I’m interested to meet with my SP and see what he has to say.
Randy,
The true definition of “doctrine” is ‘that which is taught.’ Hence, when President Hinckley says it’s not doctrinal (if indeed those are his precise words), he is saying that it is no longer taught.
By the same token, when the Church says it no longer practices polygamy, it’s in the context of “time.” However, there is no teaching (I.e. doctrine) that I’m aware of that disavows it in the eternities. To clarify, there are/were 3 kinds of marriages taught and practiced: for time,for time and eternity, and for eternity only. Your clearance preserves “for eternity” while disallowing “for time.”
Wonderboy. That is good clarification. I appreciate that. The only issue is…..why aren’t we taught this when we are kids or adults in Sunday school and gospel doctrine? As a 40 something year old in this Church, born and raised, served a mission, I’ve been taught AND I’ve taught others that polygamy was a thing of the past, not necessary for my salvation and something the Lord did for a short time and we do not practice it whatsoever. But to find out that we really do practice it and that I am a spiritual polygamist by sealing even after asking for a cancellation and not getting one…..I am dissolutioned. I did not sign up to be a polygamist. The Lord himself would have to directly tell me to be a polygamist face to face. I would decline if any man, prophet or not, asked me to live it spiritually. It undermines my view of fidelity in monogamy. My dad says I may see things differently in heaven. Great. But I didn’t sign up to be one spiritually NOW or in this life. Why aren’t we taught this growing up or give investigators this information prior to committing to baptism. When they find this stuff out, it shakes faith to know I subscribe to a religion that believes in polygamy as (BTW Wonderboy…those were Hinckley’s precise words.) “It isn’t doctrinal.” Again, Brigham Young explicitly stated about polygamy: “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269). He stated these things over and over from the pulpit as did John Taylor and Woodruff. This isn’t told to the vast majority of members. When we find out, we feel the Church isn’t being upfront and honest about not only the history but about what we can expect Heaven to be like and what commitment may be required of me in the hereafter. This affects me NOW. Why commit my heart and soul and financial and time resources and my world view to an organization that isn’t exactly open and honest and willing to discuss these MAJOR religions tenets?
There was so much peace in ignorance. Now that these things have hit up against my in my personal life…being sealed to two women against my request…I have to question. I feel questioning and having concerns and researching is healthy. But I feel alone because my wife doesn’t want to discuss it much, my parents are worried that by discussing it too much, I’ll lose my testimony. But what is a testimony if it is only based on part of the truth. I’m sure many people had a testimony of the earth being flat until they found out it was round. When truth is withheld from someone and they find out….the next natural thought is…..what else isn’t being told to me or is being told me ….but wrong. Now that I find out more about Church history, I find many other things about history we never were taught…..
I’m a 5th generation Mormon. My 4th great grandfather was the adopted son of Brigham Young. I will always be an “ethnic Mormon”. To bounce entirely would be difficult because I am so entrenched but I feel like this Church isn’t the whole truth anymore. I don’t want to lose my wife and kids over this. I’ll probably stay involved for them. I don’t know how long I can do that. But I refuse to fully committed to a religion that says I have to be a polygamist or be OK with polygamy to have an eternal family.
I’m stuck in the Mormon Twilight Zone. Sorry to ramble. It always feels better after you throw up. LOL.
****I recently found John Dehlin podcasts and StayLDS which has helped me not feel so alone and so crazy. I am seeing that I am not just overreacting and my frustration is felt by many.****
I just wish there was a LDS-light or a Diet – LDS Church without the doctrinal baggage cause it’s weighing me down.
P.S. God answers the prayers of the earnestly seeking soul. As I was about to hit send, this hymn popped into my head. I googled the lyrics. WOW. What an answer.
1. Where can I turn for peace?
Where is my solace
When other sources cease to make me whole?
When with a wounded heart, anger, or malice,
I draw myself apart,
Searching my soul?
2. Where, when my aching grows,
Where, when I languish,
Where, in my need to know, where can I run?
Where is the quiet hand to calm my anguish?
Who, who can understand?
He, only One.
3. He answers privately,
Reaches my reaching
In my Gethsemane, Savior and Friend.
Gentle the peace he finds for my beseeching.
Constant he is and kind,
Love without end.
AWESOME.
Christ. Not a church, not a book, not a podcast, will eventually give me peace.
“He, only One.”
WOW. Powerful.
Randy