Weekend Poll is here by request! Polgamy has been a hot topic lately, most notably with Kirk Van Allen’s potential disciplinary hearing coming up. Kristine A, Mormon Heretic, and Hawkgrrrl have all weighed in on the topic in the last few weeks. What are your your thoughts regarding polygamy past and present?
[yop_poll id=”60″]
[yop_poll id=”61″]
[yop_poll id=”62″]
[yop_poll id=”63″]
[yop_poll id=”64″]
[yop_poll id=”65″]
We are hopeful that Ziff, the mighty number cruncher, will give us a more detailed and interesting analysis of the poll results, so please participate in all poll questions! What thoughts would you like to share?
Wheat & Tares 
I suppose I could analyze my beliefs more, but I really don’t want to. Most of my pioneer-era ancestors were polygamists, received a strong spiritual witness of “the Principle”, and then led lives of struggle.
While I hate to discount their witness, I found my marriage is happiest when I choose to believe and act as if monogamy is the sole law of heaven. So I voted for monogamy in the last question, even though I’m not sure it’s really what I believe.
Go Clark. I know of many marriages that would have been saved had this attitude been taken. Instead, the ambivalent current attitude has been seen as justification for infidelity, at least psychologically.
I don’t know any one who is justifying infidelity based on polygamy past, present or future. However, I am old enough to know many men and women who were widowed and have remarried and hope they are ‘sealed’ to both spouses in the next life.
I think most people judge polygamy, then and now, based on their 21st century mindset. Some seem quite incapable of putting themselves in anyone’s position from any other time period.
Come to think of it, some seem incapable of putting themselves in anyone else’s shoes….
Of course, polygamy was unheard of in the US in the 19th century and still exists today in Muslim countries. The one key difference between 19th and 21st century marriages is that we now marry for love which was less common in the 19th century, and yet, also not unheard of. Joseph & Emma were said to marry for love since it was not an advantageous marriage for her. Women were generally more prone to marry for advantage and security, which frankly still holds true to some extent in the church with our perpetuation of gender roles in which women self-select out of the economy. In the 19th century, they were much more equal participants in the economy, producing things like candles and soaps and selling their vegetables.
Time to resurrect my post on the myth of traditional marriage.
“that we now marry for love”
Or some think they do, but soon discover that love is not enough… and what they thought was love, was not even….
My observation: Just married’s “I could never marry again if my spouse died.” Late ’20s into late ’30s with kids “I would probably remarry if my spouse died because of need for financial and emotional support, sex, helpmeet,etc.” Early ’40s into late ’50s “I might remarry. Sex drive still there, and I still want companionship, financial help, helpmeet.” Early ’60’s and beyond “I probably won’t remarry, though I think about it. Maybe. Same reasons exist — companionship, serve mission together, finances, helpmeet, even sex.” The decision to remarry after death of spouse at any age is deeply personal. Nonetheless, once it happens, it of necessity introduces the conflict inherent to plural sealings. I think I have been consistent in saying that past brushes with plural marriage don’t concern me. We aren’t living that principle now, so what happened 150 years ago doesn’t matter. What will, or could, affect me is how plural sealings will play out in the life to come.
” Women were generally more prone to marry for advantage and security”
Generally more prone? Really? Let’s not forget in time periods when polygamy was practiced by Prophets (at least those considered prophets by the LDS — Joseph, Brigham, Moses, Abraham, Issac, Jacob..) the laws supported coverture where married women were feme covert; and single women were feme sole.
They had no rights. They were property. They had NO way to properly take care of themselves. They were totally at the mercy of the laws at the time.
And Hawk – re: Traditional marriage. I’ve read your post and those of others who say marrying for love is a recent invention. I don’t buy it. There are too many instances in literature from ages ago where “love” is at the center of the relationships. Sure, there were dynastic marriages of powerful people. But, for the everyday run of the mill potato farmers living in whatever part of the world, I think they married for love if not, to some degree, through a quasi arranged marriage sort of way. Even now, we don’t marry solely on “love.” We still factor in many other things when approaching the dating/marriage dance.
W&T has hosted a lot of polygamy post. That’s OK by me. The more polygamy is understood the better it is for church members. The polygamy Joseph Smith introduced was a commandment of God, not for the purpose of sexual gratification and power as some view it.
I’ll point out a couple of things I’ve found that will help see a more balanced picture of polygamy, including polyandry.
Here are two links:
Those who sought a witness received a dramatic experience which convinced them, independent of Joseph, that plural marriage was the correct path for them to follow.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families
Regarding polyandry: The historical record shows that none of the women complained, and their legal husbands left no grievances against the Prophet. Officiators and witnesses made no protest either. Even apostates in Nauvoo did not exploit these relationships in their anti-Mormon literature. It may seem odd to us today, but it was apparently acceptable to those who engaged in these unions at the time.
http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/polyandry-plurality-of-wives-sorry-not-practiced-or-permitted/
IDIAT: “Even now, we don’t marry solely on “love.” We still factor in many other things when approaching the dating/marriage dance.” If we’re smart we do!
Are you really suggesting that consent is the only issue here?
In “Shall I Marry Again?,” Ensign, Oct 1988, Marilyn Whipple alludes to the $64K question after reminiscing how she came to remarry after being widowed: “Since our marriage, Richard and I have grown to love each other deeply, and we sometimes wonder how we will ever be able to live without one another.” And that, as they say, is where the plural marriage rubber meets the proverbial eternal road. All that plural marriage going on in the early days of the church. Sordid. Mysterious. Titillating. Sad. Inspired. Not so inspired. But over and done with. But plural sealings? Happening now, every day, in temples all over the world. For both the living and the dead. The same principles that apply today are the same principles that would apply to those couples married/sealed 150 years ago. They will just have to work things out in the next life. Sorry for the threadjack.
Jared, there are countless women who objected to polygamy both before and after entering into polygamy, and I addressed it in my previous post. Just to remind you (because you only react to “positive” polygamy, not “negative” polygamy): 19 year old Nancy Rigdon rejected Joseph Smith’s polygamy proposal before entering into it (see comment #70), 16 year old Fanny Alger never returned to polygamy after been caught in a compromising position in the barn with Joseph (and I might remind you this is before the prophet Elijah restored the sealing power in D&C 128), as well as Eliza Ann Young, the woman who divorced Brigham and then went on a tour against polygamy (known as “wife #19″). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Eliza_Young
I do think IDIAT raises some pertinent points as to those who think polygamy is only in the past. It is with many who have lost spouses to current day divorce or death. It is one reason why I think poly-amory might be found in the Celestial Kingdom, but I have a hard time with the way Joseph and Brigham shared Eliza R. Snow as a plural wife. Consecutive sealings is ok by me, but I have a problem with concurrent sealings to multiple partners. It sounds too much like the “free love” movement of the 1960s-70s.
It should be noted that even apostles and other prominent Church leaders couldn’t keep polygamist wives happy. MH notes that both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both divorced or separated from several wives. Joseph F. Smith divorced his first wife over her unwillingness to share her husband, as did Parley P. Pratt’s, just to name a few.
I find the “affairs” prior to the restoration of the sealing keys to be most problematic. IMHO, it’s time to untangle the knot that has eternal marriage and polygamy all bound up together. WW and JFS made progress on eliminating the practice, and HJG did significant work in getting members to understand “new and everlasting” refers to sealing, not polygamy. But as this comment thread illustrates, the Church is still waiting for someone to untangle the doctrine, the revelations, and the scriptures, and cut polygamy adrift on the same “false doctrine raft” as blood atonement, Adam-God, and other creations of BY.
MH-The point of my comment is to add a little balance to the topic of P/P. It’s not my intention to just point out one side of the issues surrounding P/P. I would like to understand, as best we can, all these years later what was really going on.
I think the best approach is to view it from the prospective of those who lived at the time and those who entered into P/P.
Do you feel you have tried to present the whole picture or are you taking a point of view as a critic?
I read where Todd Compton took the Tanners to task for using his words selectively. Do you know anything about that incident.
I appreciate your insights.
#12 Kullervo
I think consent is the most important part of any arrangement. The reason many of the women consented to polygamy was due do revelation. I hope you will read this link to see their point of view.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families
Jared–you mean like Emma’s consent?
Brian-I believe Emma did give her consent to start with, then vacillated over time.
“I believe Emma did give her consent to start with, then vacillated over time.”
Jared, you can believe what you want, but this statement is demonstrably false. Emma not only didn’t consent to the first sealing of Joseph to Fanny Alger, but she threw Fanny out of the house with Fanny never to return to the church. There is no evidence she consented to any of the wives prior to Emily and Eliza Partridge (wives #19 and 20), and when she did consent, she believed these were merely spiritual sealings. As soon as she learned of the physical nature of the relationships with the Partridge sisters, Emma threw them out of the house just like she did Fanny Alger. Emma’s “consent” was made under false pretenses.
So yes, it could be argued that Emma vacillated in her opinion, but (1) she never “did give her consent to start with”, and (2) the reason she vacillated was initially because she was lied to. So Jared, you can hardly claim to be adding “balance” to the discussion when you are so completely unaware of the facts and are spreading (unintentional) falsehoods. Your statement in comment 20 is demonstrably false. I do not believe malice on your part, but your ignorance of the history surrounding Emma’s “consent” is evident by the incorrect statements you make.
“Do you feel you have tried to present the whole picture or are you taking a point of view as a critic?”
I absolutely believe I am trying to present the whole picture. The Church hasn’t done a good job of presenting the whole picture, as evidenced by the false statement you just made. Does that make me a critic? It seems to me that the only way you can find my representations of history as “balanced” is if I represent only the LDS Church’s side, which we all know is not balanced. However, the new essays are a MAJOR step forward, and I do laud the church for allowing them to be published. It is a big step in the right direction, and corrects much of the imbalance of polygamy conversations of the past century. (The falsehoods are deeply ingrained, and it’s going to take some time to fix that however.)
So, no I don’t consider myself unbalanced–I keep saying that I believe Joseph is a prophet despite my feelings that the practice of plural marriage is not inspired. I’d say that puts me in quite rare company, and is quite a balanced position overall, and hardly classifies me as a critic of Joseph. (A critic of polygamy, yes, but not of Joseph.)
But I am going to vigorously object to demonstrably false statements, even if unintentional, because it is past time that “faithful” members such as yourself quit stating incorrect beliefs about how polygamy was practiced. There are far too many uninformed like yourself, and it isn’t right to allow such statements to go unchallenged when they are demonstrably false.
I know nothing about the Tanners misquoting Compton. Good for him. If someone misquotes me (faithful or critical), I wouldn’t like it either.
Jared: Yes, women who had no means of independent financial support often did put up with a lot in marriage, even against their own interests. Emma was no exception.
MH-you’ve paid the price to understand church history in depth. I listening.
There is one thing I would like to ask you and hawkgrrrl.
It appears you ignore, by your lack of comments, the spiritual manifestations many of the former day saints say were their reasons for embracing polygamy, a principle that was initially repugnant to them.
You’re not the only ones, no one else addresses them either. I’m puzzled. What are your thoughts?
hawkgrrrl-no doubt financial support played a role in decision making for women, but how far can that argument be taken before it breaks down? They were also intelligent, principled, strong individuals.
Jared-“they were also intelligent, principled, strong individuals” You really need to work on your sweeping generalizations.
“Spiritual manifestations” mean nothing me more than internally sourced feelings of comfort and guidance. “Spiritual manifestations”, or whatever else they may be called, give diametrically opposed guidance to different people all around the world. This religion is right, that religion is right, that religion is the abominable church, etc., etc. That some pioneers decided to follow Joseph Smith and his Dirty Harry sword wielding angel down the path of polygamy means no more to me than 913 people in Jonestown deciding to follow their leader’s advice of, “if you knew what was ahead of you, you’d be glad to be stepping over tonight.” That even sounds eerily similar to the folkloric quote given to Joseph Smith that goes something like, “If you could see the Telestial Kingdom, you’d kill yourself just to get there.”
That people feel instructed from some being from another planet to do or not do something, carries no weight with me, an intelligent, principled, strong individual.
Jared, I think Brian has articulated well my feelings about spiritual manifestations. I think that lots of people have had spiritual manifestations that were flat out wrong. For example, did you know that John D. Lee prayed and received a manifestation that he should participate in the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
I can’t explain false revelations very well, but I feel that I have a pretty good spiritual manifestation when I know they are false.
Jared, what do you think of John D. Lee’s spiritual manifestation?
Let’s get back to the topic at hand, and let me turn your question back to you, in order to provide “balance” to the discussion. Let’s talk about modern-day polygamy for a minute. Jared, do you support “the spiritual manifestations of [both Kody Brown and Warren Jeffs] say are their reasons for embracing polygamy?” If not, why not?
Brian-after reading your #24 I wonder why you hang out at LDS blogs. I can understand your point of view, just a little puzzled by your choice to participate in LDS conversations.
Jared, my point is that, if polygamy was not commanded by God, I’m not sure why consent makes it any better. If adultery is a sin, the fact that it is consensual doesn’t make it not a sin.
MH-after reading both your and Brian’s comments I’m reminded of the vast variety of gifts exhibited by humankind.
In recent years there have been interviews with people who possess the gift of “endless memory” (see link below).
There are also those who are prodigies. They have gifts to do extraordinary things in the arts, like learning to play the piano without being taught at a very young age or play chess, comprehend mathematics, and etc at a genius level because they something in their brains that sets them apart.
I bring these gifted people up to answer your questions. On one hand we have gifted people like I just mentioned, then on the other, we have people like Jim Jones, Hilter, and maybe John D Lee and etc.
Lots of variety. How can you or Brian be narrow in your thinking about manifestations of the spirit? I hope you will agree, or at least be open to the possibility that there are many people who have authentic spiritual experiences.
There is opposition in all things, including spiritual manifestations.
It shouldn’t surprise any that there are those who claim spiritual manifestations who fall into a host of categories:
1. True
2. Deceived
3. Liars
4. Mentally Ill
5. Wrong
6. Never had one
7. Don’t want one
As one who has had manifestations of the Spirit, I know they are authentic and a gift from God.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gift-of-endless-memory/
Kullervo
If it wasn’t of God, then consent is meaningless. The point I’m making is that many of the women consented to polygamy because of a manifestation of the Spirit.
Jared, you didn’t even attempt to answer my questions.
(1) What do you think of John D. Lee’s spiritual manifestation?
(2) Do you support “the spiritual manifestations of [both Kody Brown and Warren Jeffs] say are their reasons for embracing polygamy?” If not, why not?
MH – I’m not seeing a spiritual manifestation in the snippet you provided. I see him praying, but that’s it.
“I then left the council, and went away to myself, and bowed myself in prayer before God, and asked Him to overrule the decision of that Council. I shed many bitter tears, and my tortured soul was wrung nearly from my body by the great suffering. I will here say, calling upon Heaven, angels, and the spirits of just men to witness what I say, that if I could then have had a thousand worlds to command, I would have given them freely to save that company from death.”
Doesn’t this sound like he was prompted to kill all men, women, and children over the age of 8?
MH, I don’t read it that way. I think he’s simply saying he would have given anything not to have to carry out the order. There’s nothing there explaining why he actually did.
I noted in the first comment of this thread that one–perhaps the only–obstacle I have to flagging polygamy as false doctrine and throwing it under the bus is the spiritual manifestations those practicing it received. They knew the ugly side of the practice firsthand, yet many stood by their witness.
If we discount spiritual impressions and promptings, we have nothing.
MH – he prayed, cried, and wished he didn’t have to do it. There really doesn’t seem to be any manifestation at all.
“There really doesn’t seem to be any manifestation at all.”
Well, if we can believe Lee (and I don’t see why not), it seems to me that Lee approached God wrestling just as Enos did. “No manifestation” was a manifestation that the Council’s decision was correct, and certainly that is how Lee interpreted it. And I think Lee wrestled over the issue (his “totured soul”) as both Enos and Abraham did when they asked God.
Lee is making a case that the council’s decision was God’s decision. He asked God with “bitter tears” and a “tortured soul”, just as Abraham did in the case of Gomorrah to spare the city. And just like Abraham, God said he would destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Unlike Abraham, John D. Lee was the destroying angel, rather than Abraham.
With Abraham, God intervened with Isaac, and with Gomorrah. But Gomorrah was destroyed, as were the Fancher and Baker parties. Lee is explicitly blaming his involvement in MMM due to God endorsing the Council decision. Lee is blaming God for this atrocity. And God did not intervene, despite Lee’s bitter tears and tortured soul. I think this experience of Lee bears tremendous resemblance to God not intervening on Sodom’s behalf.
It’s why I don’t blame Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction on God, nor the MMM. God should be blameless in both destructions, yet Lee and Abraham’s spiritual manifestations led them to believe these destructions were God’s will.
But I’d still like to hear from Jared. And I’d love to have Kullervo comment on if he thinks God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, or if this can be explained in other ways.
MH-the answer is there.
I’ll be explicit. With John D Lee I will guess 6, possibility 2.
With Warren Jeffs I’d say 6. I read a newspaper article stating he said he wasn’t a prophet.
Kody Brown. Don’t know if he ever claimed revelation.
1. True
2. Deceived
3. Liars
4. Mentally Ill
5. Wrong
6. Never had one
7. Don’t want one
I
MH et al,
I don’t like to bring up my experiences with manifestation of the Spirit without the hope it adds to faith of those involved.
MH talked about Enos. I can speak from experience. Just because someone pours out their heart with tears and conviction doesn’t mean they are having an Enos like experience.
Spiritual manifestations come in varying degrees of intensity. In this months (March 2015) Ensign, page 76, there is an account where a man named Jimmy is in the 2010 earthquake in Hati. An audible voice spoke to him, telling him what to do.
These kinds of experiences are irrefutable to the recipient. I’ve had several of these experiences and there is no chance for misunderstanding, as there is with some other forms of Spiritual manifestations.
So no manifestation -is- a manifestation? That doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s like trying to tell people that prayed about the Church being true who got no answer that that’s their answer.
Yes Frank, but missionaries deal with that experience every day, and their advice to the potential convert is to keep praying until they get an answer of “yes, the church is true”, and we talk of burning bosoms etc. If a person doesn’t get a burning bosom, does that mean they shouldn’t join the church? No missionary will ever say that, but what else is a potential convert to conclude?
Jared, I appreciate the more explicit response. Your previous answer was much too vague for anyone to ascertain how you felt.
So you say Lee never had a spiritual manifestation, or could be deceived. I vote for the latter, because I am less likely to proclaim someone a liar. I will note that many people accuse Joseph Smith of being a liar, and a few claim he could have been deceived.
As for Warren Jeffs, did you know that when he proclaimed that, it was actually a revelation? I have the short video (like 2 minutes) where he dictated the revelation. See http://mormonheretic.org/2011/03/16/jeffs-revelation-that-he-is-not-a-prophet/ Please check it out. It’s really strange.
“Kody Brown. Don’t know if he ever claimed revelation.” His claims are just like those women you mentioned in comment 10, “Those who sought a witness received a dramatic experience which convinced them, independent of Joseph, that plural marriage was the correct path for them to follow.”
My point is this. Whether one believes Joseph a liar, was deceived, or any of the other things you listed depends on “studying it out in your mind, and asking [God] if it is right.” Nobody can crawl into Joseph or Warren or Eliza Partridge or Kody Brown or Wilford Woodruff’s head. We can only study, pray, and ask God whether it is right. For me, I study by comparing actions against other scriptures, and seek the spirit for confirmation. I feel that plural marriage is wrong, and I think I have developed a pretty good case that it is wrong biblically, as well as in the 19th and 21st centuries. I may be wrong (but of course I don’t think so, or I would change my mind.) I have neither logic nor spiritual witness that I am wrong, so I don’t plan on changing my opinion unless I can be persuaded otherwise.
“…there is an account where a man named Jimmy is in the 2010 earthquake in Hati. An audible voice spoke to him, telling him what to do.”
Bummer it wasn’t a little louder. The 100,000 to 160,000 who died in the quake could have also used a little heads up.
Brian-
Death is not the end-its a new beginning. What we do here will affect the our new beginning.
MH-good exchange–enjoyed.
The important part of all this is to be true to who we are based on the sum total of our experience.
Jared- I visit W&T for two reasons. Hawkgrrrl is a fabulous writer and I am fascinated that she is a believer. The other reason is I enjoy MH’s historical posts. I don’t come here seeking spiritual truths or gems of wisdom from tunnel-vision believers, which thankfully are very much in the minority at this website.
Brian, thanks for the kinds words. Jared, I checked out the 60 Minutes link (it was interesting), but I fail to understand what relevance it had to the topic at hand.
Been away.
MH-my purpose in linking to the 60 minutes piece is to point out that there is a wide variety of abilities on the continuum of human gifts.
Someone that can remember what that had to eat, the weather, and their schedule for any day in their lifetime is displaying an uncommon, yet observable ability.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that “spiritual” gifts are part of the pool of gifts that available to humankind. Some from God and some from other sources.
All these gifts are probably part of the makeup of the brain.
Brian-thanks for sharing.