There’s a fun headline from a Southern Utah news station today, “Cousin to Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith reveals truth behind polygamy.” Apparently the descendants of one of Joseph Smith’s cousins, Jesse N. Smith, are having a big family reunion later this month in Orem, Utah, and inviting the media to attend. “It is the hope of reunion organizers that media might observe and ask questions of descendants of early polygamists to gain a better understanding of the practice of polygamy.”
I was amused when I read the description of the exemplar polygamist family: “Jesse N. Smith became a prominent church and political leader. He practiced plural marriage and eventually married five wives. Jesse, together with them, successfully raised 44 children. Jesse’s wives wrote in their journals that all the wives and the children all got along well together.” That’s cool – one husband, five wives, and 44 children, and there were never any family problems. Yup, completely believable. And totally typical of the historical Mormon polygamy experience.
Yeah, right.
I have 16 different male Mormon polygamist ancestors and a love of family history. Here’s something I’ve learned: there is no “typical” Mormon polygamist family. But you don’t have to take my word for it. From the official First Presidency-approved gospel topics essay: “Where the family lived—whether in Salt Lake City, with its multiple social and cultural opportunities, or the rural hinterlands, where such opportunities were fewer in number—made a difference in how plural marriage was experienced. It is therefore difficult to accurately generalize about the experience of all plural marriages.”
One thing’s for certain, five wives aren’t a good representation of historical polygamy.[1] From the essay, “Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time.” The key phrase here is “at a time.” It’s one thing to describe someone as a polygamist. It’s another thing to actually look over the lifetime of that guy and see when wives were living concurrently. What’s interesting is how much it can impact your perspective.
A year ago I was sitting in the temple with a distant cousin my same age (mid-thirties). We were attending a family temple day in honor of our common Mormon pioneer ancestor. I can’t remember how it came up, but she referenced the pioneer’s practice of polygamy and his five wives with the normal roll of the eyes and nervous laugh. I countered, “Well, you got to remember only three of those wives were plural wives.” Because, you know, I’m a nerd. But I’m also a girl, and I knew the information would be helpful. “See, he was married to his first wife for, like, twenty years before he ever took on plural wives. Then he married those three sisters all at once. Thing is, they only lived like that a few years (6, tops) before he was a monogamist again. The first wife and one of the plural wives died. The other plural wife divorced him. He was down to just the one plural wife for a couple years. Then she died. That’s when he married his fifth wife. He was a monogamist for the vast majority of the time.” She thought about it and smiled a little, like I knew she would.[2] Hello, none of us like the idea of polygamy.
Want something else likely more “typical?” From the essay: “Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women.” Whoa, understatement. A female ancestor said one day her husband “got it in his head” to get a second wife. She said it felt like her husband died the day he married the other girl.[3] Another ancestor told her husband that if he took a second wife he’d never be allowed back in her house.[4] In another case, my ancestor was the much younger plural wife who made the first wife crazy jealous.[5] Another first wife ancestor ended up refusing to go with her husband and his two younger plural wives down to Mexico. She wanted to stay near her grown kids in Utah, and she felt there was nothing for her if she went with her husband. I had another guy who married three sisters (different from the one I talked about before). My family always said there was a running joke about why it was good to marry biological sisters – they knew how to live with each other without killing each other.[6] The majority of my female ancestors who dealt with plural marriage didn’t leave a record about how they personally felt about it. I know some of the plural marriages were the “taking care of old widows” type, so at least they probably had little drama.
Finally, if you’re going to talk “truth” of polygamy, you need to cover different time periods. The token polygamist, Jesse N. Smith, first got married in 1852, so we’ve totally missed all the early Nauvoo plural marriages (come on, I have four guys who were polygamists during Joseph Smith’s lifetime). His last marriage is in 1881, so we don’t get any of the post-Manifesto polygamy intrigue (he spent one year in Mexico pre-Manifesto. Pfft.). I don’t even see anything about fundamentalist trouble (one of mine got excommunicated for performing plural marriages after 1904, just so ya know).
Look, I’m all about family history and I’m 100% supportive of big family reunions, but claiming to have the “truth” about Mormon polygamy? Good luck with that.[7]
Discuss.
[1] It’s a hilarious brand name for Utah-made vodka, though.
[2] Yes, I minimized the impact of polygamy to my cousin. I felt sorry for her. Sue me.
[3] It didn’t help when he moved away to escape government officials and left his first wife alone for two years. She got fed up, packed her family in a wagon, and chased him down.
[4] He moved out and got a second wife. My grandma told me about this woman (her great-grandma) to explain where she got her “feistiness” from. Then she cleared her throat and said we probably weren’t supposed to share those stories. My grandma was awesome.
[5] Why would the jealousy be mentioned to later descendants? Because the plural wife died young leaving a little girl. The first wife felt so guilty that she vowed to love and raise that little girl like she was one of her own children.
[6] Near as I can tell this family got along pretty well. They were relatively wealthy, though. All the kids (sons and daughters) were well-educated.
[7] At least they’ll have a Brigham Young reenactor. If you want to give the media good sound bites on polygamy, he’s definitely the go-to guy.
Jealous LDS women simply can’t imagine not being jealous and therefore declare polygamy ungodly but I know a couple of women who actually perfer a polygamous lifestyle. I don’t think we can rule out the possibility that it was commanded by God to refine out our jealousy and possessiveness over the course of many generations.
Howard, so you think the “typical” polygamous marriage lacked any sort of jealousy whatsoever?
Do you think the line in Jacob 2 that polygamy should be the exception rather than the rule was just something for the lower folk who can’t handle a higher law?
I have an ancestor who married 3 sisters. He died young and all three asked for a temple divorce AFTER he died. They got it. They went on to marry and be sealed to other men.
The church needs to bring that back!
Howard, I know you’re all about complex/open marriages. That’s not what was happening with 19th-century Mormon polygamy. Women did not have a say about what other wives would be joining their relationships. Women were not at liberty to sleep with a range of men so that men could also have the luxury of ridding themselves of the jealousy that so many women experienced.
I have no doubt there were some wives who got along swell. I personally know some women currently married to widowers who are very grateful for the principle of polygamy so that they can be with their husbands in the afterlife.
I, too, adore the Sneer. How adroit; you Sneer so well!
And who better to hold in contempt?
“O Lord! We thank thee that we are better than those ordinary mormons, that thou has blessed us with Correct Opinions. And let us signal our Virtue before all, forever and ever. Amen.”
I pray that our most diligent Sneering will — in time — bring ordinary mormons to have only Correct Opinions, like us, and thereby become (oh, dearest hope!) fully human.
Interesting defensive response Mary Ann, you know from other threads that I don’t think that at all.
LOVE the Jim Carrey GIF.
The two sets of three sisters get my attention because (according to this footnote in a BCC post) they’re evidentially supposed to be very rare:
[Joseph Smith] tells [William] Clayton the following on September 15, 1843:
“Prest.J. told me he had lately had a new item of law revealed to him in relation to myself. He said the Lord had revealed to him that a man could only take 2 of a family except by express revelation and as I had said I intended to take Lydia he made this known for my benefit. to have more than two in a family was apt to cause wrangles and trouble. He finally asked if I would not give L[ydia] to him I said I would so far as I had any thing to do in it. He requested me to talk to her.”
Apt to cause wrangles and troubles, and by the way, give the third sister to me?!?
This family will have a great reunion. They should! But I hope the church isn’t involved. Any move it makes to buff up polygamy for a modern audience causes people like me to take a step away.
I understand showing that some polygamists were happy with their arrangements, but the more strenuously this is done, the more likely it is that counterpoints will emerge. There is plenty of outrageously sad material in journals and papers.
Just read “the polygamous wives writing club” for an interesting view of “average” Mormon marriages. I walked away not so much disgusted by men’s sexuality as I was by the loneliness of the wives.
“Can’t rule out that it was commanded by God to refine out our jealousy and possessiveness over many generations.”
Yesterday God, himself, confesses that he is a jealous and possessive God, and commands us to become even as He is.
There you go.
“Yet” God, himself….
What did men learn to overcome from polygamy?
That is a good question. What did the men learn?
Probably a lot. But what? Very interesting question.
Ruth, when someone brought up that quote from Joseph Smith to William Clayton, I was definitely scratching my head. The first guy who married three sisters supposedly married them in Nauvoo while Joseph was still alive.
Ordain E, not sure if you are talking about Howard’s sneer or my sneer. For my part, I have no qualms with sneering in this case. Suggesting that polygamy was all kicks and giggles does a disservice to many people.
–It does a disservice by minimizing the incredibly special situations where women *did* get along with each other by suggesting it was common.
–It does a disservice to those women who stuck with polygamy in spite of severe pain by suggesting their pain was entirely self-inflicted (if they just had a stronger testimony, they would have realized there was nothing to be bothered about!). For me as a descendant, the fact those women retained testimonies of the church in *spite* of being hurt by polygamy is an incredible example.
–It does a disservice to those women who attempted to live polygamy and decided to divorce (clearly those faithless women just couldn’t cut it!).
–It does a disservice to all those members who rejoiced when they heard the announcement of the Manifesto, or to those 19th-century members who discouraged their sons and daughters from practicng polygamy because they could see the difficulties it caused in family life (we know parents did that from women who explained they chose to become plural wives in spite of their member parents’ strenuous objections).
I also have no problem laughing because I participate heavily in one of those type pioneer descendant organizations. If someone had recommended in my presence to bring in outside media so that we could provide an apologetic face for polygamy, I would have felt entirely comfortable laughing in their face. Then I would have proceeded to tell them some of the stories we don’t typically hear as descendants until they got uncomfortable enough to start shifting around in their seats. These descendant organizations were built to pass on a heritage of faith. The stories and folklore passed down are heavily biased towards that end.
What did the men learn? That if they rose high enough in the organization, they got to have access to the best wives.
Polygamy is always a byproduct (in society) of wealth. It’s a status symbol in societies that practice it for a man to have many wives. That shows he is successful financially and can afford it, and he can thereby have more children to bolster his immortality. What do the men learn from it? That they are awesome and important and better than others. What do the women get out of it? That they are possessions, status symbols, trophies for men of status. Similar to terrorists who look forward to their 72 virgins in heaven.
Did anyone see a recent CNN piece with the Muslim scholar saying that “virgins” was a mistranslation? It’s actually “raisins.” I definitely dunno, but the mental image cracks me up.
Yes indeed, jealousy is a godly goal, just ask Jesus Christ or exlamplar.
Our
I think Hawkgrrrl nailed it except for one item. They learned that if they had multiple wives they could ignore one of the wives if she didn’t agree with him. For me that is a key purpose of marriage is to have someone that knows you better than anyone just where some of your flaws are. I have read a bit that seems in some situations a “uppity” wife was banished to be in the middle of nowhere. Now that sounds really fair to me (NOT!)
@ Ruth – Well I for one would be willing to blow myself and others up for a few dozen raisins! But maybe it is just lunchtime and I am hungry 🙂
hawkgrrrl,
Unfortunately, I think Joseph put it very succinctly in a conversation with William Clayton. WILLIAM CLAYTON:JOSEPH SMITH’S “PRIVATE CLERK” AND EYEWITNESS TO MORMON POLYGAMY IN NAUVOO.
Howard, I will agree with you on one point – plural marriage definitely cured Brigham Young of any jealousy whatsoever:
“[Thomas B. Marsh] has told you that he is an old man. Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congregation that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men.
Brother Thomas considers himself very aged and infirm, and you can see that he is, brethren and sisters. What is the cause of it? He left the Gospel of salvation. What do you think the difference is between his age and mine? One year and seven months to a day; and he is one year, seven months, and fourteen days older than brother Heber C. Kimball.
“Mormonism” keeps men and women young and handsome; and when they are full of the Spirit of God, there are none of them but what will have a glow upon their countenances; and that is what makes you and me young; for the Spirit of God is with us and within us.
When brother Thomas thought of returning to the Church, the plurality of wives troubled him a good deal. Look at him. Do you think it need to? I do not; for I doubt whether he could get one wife. Why it should have troubled an infirm old man like him is not for me to say. He read brother Orson Pratt’s work upon that subject, and discovered that the doctrine was beautiful, consistent, and exalting, and that the kingdom could not be perfect without it.”
https://journalofdiscourses.com/5/34
I recently attended a temple sealing and heard the words once again regarding the bride giving herself to her groom, and he receives her but never gives himself back. Then it goes on to talk about thrones, principalities, and all kinds of dominions and kingdoms and such.
This has always been unsettling to me. I’ve read where Joseph said the wording is such because we can only give ourselves once to one person; hence, women give to one man, but the man never gives himself so he is able to receive “all he can.” And the more wives he has, supposedly the greater his thrones, principalities and dominions, etc.
Yet the gospel in the scriptures is very anti-thrones and dominions. If the law of consecration is the way of life in the CK and all things are held in common–receiving according to your needs–how can there be thrones and principalities and such? How can there be hierarchies?
Also, how do men learn the covenant of consecrating all that they have if they never give themselves to their wives by covenant? If they only receive, how do they give all? The wording of the ordinance sets up hierarchy within marriage–one gives herself, the other receives her like a gift or possession. Even if he treats her wonderfully, the wording of this pinnacle ordinance is troublesome. Words matter….thus, some ordinances have very strict wording that must be perfectly spoken. Yup, words definitely matter.
Also, if a man has multiple wives sealed to him, he will always be with someone forever. But what about the other wives when he isn’t with them? I watch “Sisters Wives” occasionally and notice the wives see their husband every fourth day for a total of one week out of a month. What kind of joy and closeness in marriage is that? And how can this be esteemed as something any woman would want for all eternity?
As I’ve studied this topic over several decades I’ve come to see a great contradiction between plurality of wives with encumbant promises of dominions and kingdoms, and the Law of Consecration. There is indescribable lopsided-ness between men and women–the men receive and are never lonely, the women give and are awfully lonely for the one they love.
Glory, that’s painful.
Yes, words matter!
LDS women feel dismissed on this topic. We’re essentially told, “Words don’t matter. What matters is that LDS men are good, faithful husbands, fathers who really co-parent, change diapers and all that good stuff. They’re faithful. They serve their families, church and community.”
I’m thankful for all of that.
But words still matter, and Section 132 is full of offensive ones. If it was a dark scriptural corner that no one visits, it might be another thing. But they’re right there, in the very section that we say gives Mormonism its reason for being.