July 4th is a day of fireworks here in the United States. Polygamy can bring out some explosive opinions too! Last week I posted 2 episodes with Brian Hales dealing with (1) Joseph Smith’s polyandrous wives, and (2) his teen brides. Brian makes the case that Joseph never had sexual relations with either of this subset of wives. You may remember that Brian originally argued that Josephine Lyons was the offspring of Joseph Smith & Sylvia Lyons. However a DNA test revealed that Josephine was the offspring of Windsor and Sylvia Lyons. This has caused Brian to re-write his initial theory.
I theorized that the marriage between Joseph Smith and Sylvia Sessions Lyon did include sexual relations in that plural marriage, and I had some theories as how that might have unfolded. When the DNA evidence came back—and part of the theory was that Joseph was the father of Josephine [daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon.] That’s an important point. But when the DNA evidence came back that Windsor Lyon was the father, it required me to re-write things. I’ll be honest with you. It wasn’t what I expected, but it was what I had hoped.
Brian now believes that there were no sexual relations between Joseph and any of these polyandrous marriages.
Brian: Why the women chose Joseph over their legal husbands, sometimes these men were active Latter-day Saints, we don’t know. It seems odd. But it’s not as odd as them practicing actual sexual polyandry without anybody ever talking about it or finding that to be controversial.
GT: Ok, so your opinion is of all the eleven polyandrous marriages, where a woman could have two husbands essentially, none of them involved sexual relations.
Brian: Correct.
(Brian provides a few caveats to that, but essentially this is his position.) We also address the rumor that Joseph sent men on missions so he could marry their wives.
Brian: The problem is we have two sealing dates for Joseph and Marinda. The other date is from an affidavit Marinda signed that is well after Orson Hyde returning from Palestine. Even the one that appears to be a case where Joseph might have sent him on a mission, then he waits a year—it doesn’t make sense. A year later we have Joseph being sealed to Marinda, but again we have a second date. The second date is a signed affidavit which we probably would consider to be more reliable than something that was just scrawled on a page in Joseph’s journal, not in his handwriting but in I think Thomas Bullock’s [handwriting.] Again that story is false, yet it’s a sound bite. It’s all over the internet. We’ve got to kill it. It’s wrong. It’s false. Joseph did not send men on missions and so he could marry their wives according to any reliable documentation.
I also asked Brian why Joseph was sealed to teen brides instead of as a father-adopted daughter sealing.
Do you know there were no adoptions performed during Joseph’s lifetime. The only adoptions that we have any record of occurred in the Nauvoo Temple and they occurred around, depending on your definition of an adoption, there’s 205 or something. A lot of these, I use the word adoption to mean a child is sealed to parents who they are not biologically related.
In a message discussing this on Facebook, one person noted that it doesn’t really matter whether Joseph had sexual relations.
All his research does is defend the view of seeing women through the lens of their relationship to a man. In other words, the only reason it is so bad and so much worse than having sex with young teenage girls (all of which was going on without his wife’s knowledge) is because those polyandrous women were already “taken” by another man….
…
Every leader and prophet after Joseph produced children, many with very, very young teenage girls. So again, were they being disobedient apostates?
…
Let’s assume Brian is right. For some reason, Joseph married 30+ women and never had sex with any of them. For additional unexplained reasons, he felt too uncomfortable to share any of this with Emma even though he wasn’t being intimate with these women (enter flaming sword, etc.), and God didn’t deem it worthy to send an angel (flaming sword or otherwise) to convince Emma of this divine duty. But let’s put all that aside and believe this is exactly what happened.
Even if all of that is correct, every last word, it is undisputed that for almost 60 years, all of the church leaders and his successors did do all of this. Not only were they intimate with their polygamous wives, some of whom were very young girls, they celebrated those relationships and *condemned* monogamy. Not only were sexual polygamous relationships justified, they were *preferable,* considered the eternal order of marriage, and just like the relationship that God Himself had.
And that’s the best-case, faith-affirming angle Brian is arguing for.
To be clear, Brian does make the case that Joseph had sexual relations with some wives, just not the subset of polyandrous and teen brides. But given that caveat, that brings up a few questions.
- If Joseph is being sealed to other men’s wives, isn’t he a bit like King David “stealing” Uriah’s wife that the prophet Nathan condemned?
- Why do you think Brian makes the case that no sex was involved for some of these wives? Is it to assuage our feelings about Joseph Smith?
- Do you believe Brian is correct that there were no sexual relations between Joseph and his teen and polyandrous wives?
One last note I want to make: we’ve teamed up with Benchmark Books to give away a free book. To enter the contest, just sign up for our newsletter at https://gospeltangents.com/newsletter (Check the link for more information, or listen to our latest podcast too! The book is currently selling for $175 on Amazon!) Please sign up for a chance to win this cool book!
Wheat & Tares 
“If Joseph is being sealed to other men’s wives, isn’t he a bit like King David “stealing” Uriah’s wife that the prophet Nathan condemned?”
It looks that way. Especially in the eternal perspective sense – who were their husbands going to be married to then, unless back then it was actually possible for a living woman to be sealed to more than one man.
“Why do you think Brian makes the case that no sex was involved for some of these wives? Is it to assuage our feelings about Joseph Smith?”
I think the picture is more complicated than it all being about sex. I can’t help feeling though with all this messy trying to link individuals together, and I don’t know when men started to be sealed to church leaders as sons pre-Woodruff, I do question why if men could be sealed as sons was it that women were sealed as wives rather than daughters? Or were there also cases of sealings as daughters?
“Do you believe Brian is correct that there were no sexual relations between Joseph and his teen and polyandrous wives?”
I don’t think we can possibly know for sure at this distance.
When you start determining the morality of a marriage based on whether or not they had sex then you set yourself up for issues if it is discovered the they did or did not have sex based on your moral bias.
The other issue is why would you go to the trouble of getting married if you limit that intimate expression that is to be enjoyed in marriage.
I have read Brian’s summary book of his volume set and really enjoyed the arguments. However I am not convinced of the evidence of non sexual relationships in any of Joseph’s marriages. I understand and agree with the argument that Joseph was creating dynastic connections. However it is easier, in my opinion, to deal with them all as sexually based and deal with it.
I think you also do a disservice to the women involved by limiting the marital boundaries. Brian does a good job of detailing how Joseph arranged these marriages and it is clear that the women were given reasonably broad choice to say no, and a number of them did. It is certainly not predatory as some critics like to portray. Why would the women not want it to be a real marriage?
Lastly, I still don’t think that Joseph’s marriages can really be called marriages from a modern church definition. It is still clear to me that they viewed it that way but I think there needs to be some redefinition for the type of relationships that Joseph had.
Take a healthy young woman, send her husband away for months, set her up to marry someone who she admires and finds physically appealing. You then expect her not to have sex.
In what world does that happen?
Not this one.
On classical Christian theology, heaven is just one big eternal whole, full of love and with God as our eternal Father, perpetually teaching us all as we forever grow closer to Him. All our relationships with each other are continually perfected as we grow closer to God, and we become neither members of tribes nor black, white, male, female, etc. as these early barriers fall away.
Even if we ultimately excuse Joseph’s behavior and explain it as him trying to build some kind of dynastic, hierarchical, patriarchal afterlife, this seems like a reductio ad absurdum to the whole concept. His version of heaven seems smaller, and based on the same evolutionary drives and tribalism that exists here on Earth. Even if we explain the sealing power as uniting all of heaven into one heavenly family, that just seems redundant. Why not just automatically be a family by default on arrival?
I agree Arthur, but maybe his perception hadn’t evolved that far-he just had some kind of idea that there was a necessity for all to be united to priesthood bearers. All very messy, and I’m none the wiser for the resources that the church has recently published, other than to be newly convinced that there is no disavowal of polygamy in reality.
I taught D&C seminary the year we were married in the temple, only to realise that polygamy actually was still a thing even though I’d been taught that the church had disavowed it and only enemies of the church said otherwise.
Imagine my surprise.
I find the drive to settle Joseph Smith’s spiritual legacy based on his sexual experiences within polygamous marriages to be rather peculiar. Not saying this is the case with anyone commenting in this forum but I honestly don’t get it. Why do we strive to reduce such a great man’s life down to what he is or is not doing in the bedroom in a polygamous marriage? I guess it would be one thing if he was sleeping around outside of marriage or if he was heavily coercing impressionable women into making a life altering decision they did not want to make and ultimately led to their unhappiness. But we know Joseph Smith was a great great man. Seems you could compile a mountain of evidence supporting such a view that is independent of LDS church lore.
For me, it’s more important to have potential explanations that deviate from the more pessimistic interpretations of his actions perpetuated by those who lack a fondness for Joseph Smith. We’ll never know the actual truth but whether we are talking about Joseph Smith or some other great man or woman, I’d always like to err on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt if possible. Perhaps that is difficult to do when we as members of the church have been conditioned to be obsessed with sexual expression. Too bad.
One more footnote to the best case faith promoting position.
Not only did 60 years of church leaders and ancestors practice polygamy with gusto, they were unable to stop the practice after 1890. President John Taylor had a son by that name , a senior apostle and he was willing to undergo excommunication rather than give up polygamy. There were hundreds of others like him in positions high and low.
Of great controversy is the Taylor 1886 vision where it is claimed that Christ appeared to the Prophet John Taylor in a house in Davis county and commanded the establishment of secret polygamy in a group of dedicated men that would never end. How well was this documented and how well was it hidden from us? The fundies claim a document in John Taylor’s handwriting clearly describing this vision is hidden deep in the archives. True?
This group of men and others similar to them established plural marriage as a permanent feature in the Intermountain West until now 30-50,000 practice it in dozens of splinter groups. Some of it is fairly benign, but we have an astonishingly crazy fringe who kill each other (Lafferity & Lebaron groups), or shoot it out with law enforcement (Singer), others who bed 12 year olds in their bogus temple (Warren Jeffs). We can expect a perpetual cycle of crazy fringe polygamists rearing their heads in the news from time to time with no end in sight. And we cannot disassociate ourselves from them in the court of public opinion.
And at this point polygamy has been decriminalized under conditions that under age girls are not wed and they keep the welfare fraud under some control. It is never going away. An omniscient God would or should have known this if he or she commanded the initiation of this institution. What kind of a bumbling God would start such a pernicious practice that would wreck enormous havoc for generations?
What really scares me is my family history. My grandfather was a ward clerk noted for his diligence. A counselor in the bishopric was aging and needed to be replaced. My grandfather was told that if he wanted to advance in church leadership, he needed to take a second wife. Grandmother said no. Grandfather talked to leaders in Salt Lake and they said to keep it quiet. A few months later the Bishop and younger counselor went into hiding in Southern Utah to escape arrest. Not an unusual story, except for the time: this was the 1920’s. The names of the bishop and counselor were Jessop and Barlow, both prominent families in the FLDS. But for that decision of my grandfather, I could have been raised FLDS.
We can quibble about the details of Joseph Smith’s practices and draw conclusions about unanswerable questions. to satisfy our fantasies. Everything Joseph Smith could have done under the worst-case scenario pales in comparison to the collective wickedness and sorrow and abuse that transpired in the last 180 years (and counting) in the name of polygamy. Joseph Smith could have been group copulating with monkeys and donkeys and it wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket compared to what he got started and was done subsequently.
We want to give credit and honor to Joseph Smith for all the greatness and good done over the last nearly 2 centuries by the church he founded But at the same time we desire to wash him free of any responsibility for the rolling disaster his sexual activity enshrined as a religious covenant has done. Not playing fair again.
Any time sex is involved or potentially involved discussions seem to become emotionally charged. But why is that?
What exactly wrong with the concept (not the flawed practice) of Polygyny? Many early church leaders practiced it. Can anyone tell me? Is it wrong because they enjoyed it? Or some other reason? Do you actually know why you find it unthinkable that it could actually have been commanded by God or is that just easier than facing your own lack of comfort on the subject?
Why do LDS members seem to find Polyandry even more distasteful than Polygyny? Could it be that subconsciously they are buying buying into the traditional women as chattel?
I think the overriding problem with this is based in selfishness, possessiveness and jealously. He (or she) is *mine!* (my property) and I don’t want to share (because I am far to insecure).
well Howard – I’ve raised this before in discussion with you – there’s the whole a child knowing who their father is thing, not just because it’s nice to know, but because genetically / medically it’s not a good for too close relatives to reproduce…
Posted too early – editing to continue –
that would be polyandry of course – and personally for me it’s either has to be equitable ie go both ways, or not at all. So from a purely practical basis of health, then not at all.
Yes Hedgehog that is a good (at least partial) 19th century argument. Thank you! But today we can know can’t we and we can avoid reproducing with close relatives.
What about selfishness, possessiveness, jealously and personal insecurity?
As to the comment about Joseph Smith’s “polygamous legacy”, I think that characterization is grossly unfair. Joseph Smith was martyred and then decisions were made well beyond what he may have intended. Our church has paid a severe penalty for defiantly backing up anything and everything Brigham Young said or did. I wish members of the church, including perhaps the leadership as well, could come to terms with the notion that we can sustain Brigham Young as the best man to lead the early saints at a time when the leadership pickings were obviously at their slimmest, while also being able to say to ourselves, “Wait a minute, THAT GUY was a prophet?” God has allowed apostasies and atrocities on unimaginable scales throughout history. Surely it is conceivable to think that there wasn’t an amazing successor for Joseph Smith at a time when the church was so small and new. So much of this so-called legacy of polygamy lies at the feet of good men tasked to handle a situation that was beyond their limited scope in many ways. Prophets and apostles are men too. Joseph Smith dumped about a millennium’s worth of knowledge into their laps and when he left, things got a bit out of hand. Not sure why Joseph Smith has to be blamed for all of this.
Why marry at all if there is no expectation of fidelity? There doesn’t seem to be a point to it.
Well let’s see, marriage creates relationships called families. To me that seems pretty important. Is the comfort of fidelity more important than the creation of family to you?
Howard- I think for most the value of fidelity is more important than family. Especially once kids get involved or people begin to get old and not as attractive. I find it interesting that you find committed relationships selfish but a system that would inevitably favor the rich, the young, the beautiful, (however culturally defined) is the selfless thing to do. It seems both monogamy and polygamy (polyamory) would have their selfish aspects.
Howarddirkson,
Under Mormon polygamy, many of the wives basically raised their children as single mothers. I know of some polygamous who moved with their children to Arizonia or Idaho, leaving the father of the children in Utah, never to see his children again. The mother supported her children all by herself, with no financial help from the children’s father. I just don’t see such arrangements as “families”. What is the point of marrying at all, if the mother is going to function as if she is a single mother?
Sorry, but I don’t see polygamous “families” as any more of families than the polyandrous ones. So, again, why marry at all if there is not going to be fidelity? Or maybe I should rephrase, why marry at all if the father is not going to take emotional and financial responsibility for the children he produces?
“why marry at all if the father is not going to take emotional and financial responsibility for the children he produces?” And to add to this salient point, in other cultures and in history, women have frequently raised children without marriage but with the financial support of the father (kept mistresses). What would they get from marriage that they aren’t getting (which is admittedly quite limited)? The father of the children is not in a position to provide emotional support in raising the children in these cases. Even without that financial support, they have often raised children within the care of their own families. Only fidelity creates a situation in which fathers are around enough to be invested in their children emotionally. So again, if that’s not the aim, why marry? Go it alone or with your own extended family.
I have a difficult time with Brian’s views. It seems clear to me from what i read and what common sense says is there was sexual relations going on, even with the young women. It is all messy and does not look good for Joseph Smith. It seems man made than heaven made to me. The other part is the sad legacy the church has left in the form of polygamous Mormons who exist today.
At a minimum, I can’t see that the practice of polygamy benefitted the church, which then causes me to question whether it was really a commandment from God. Didnt the issue of polygamy factor somewhat into the persecution of church members and the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith?
Jason B,
I don’t find a system that favors the rich, the young, the beautiful selfless. My LDS triple great grandfather was none of those when he took a second wife so your adjectives are a distraction and have nothing at all to do with what I’m talking about.
Traditional marriage *indulges* possessiveness with concepts like; “my wife”, “my husband” and even “my better half” which is an admission that neither of you are actually complete people in their own right. Traditional marriage deals with jealousy by attempting to *never trigger* it rather than working through it. Was Jesus possessive or jealous? No, of course not. So traditional marriage may make one less selfish over time but it offers little or nothing to change one’s possessiveness and jealousy with the possible exception of habituating one’s mate to the point of simply not caring anymore.
Having experienced polyamory I know that selfishness, possessiveness and jealousy *are triggered* tearing these relationships apart. We see this unhappiness in the history of the practice of LDS polygamy. But I have also experienced that when all of nearly all of the participants have transcended selfishness, possessiveness and jealously it can work very well. So one either must grow of remain unhappy.
When our issues are triggered it is an opportunity to grow and finally resolve them. For example the stereotypical prayer of dear God please give me patience produces trying people to deal with.
So what would the fruit be from many more generations of God guided LDS polygamy? I believe it’s possible that righteously guided polygamy (both Polygyny and Polyandry) could eventually produce a people nearly free of selfishness, possessiveness and jealously. Wouldn’t that be a more Christlike people?
Anna,
I recognize that the practice of polygamy was flawed and even abusive but I’m asking what’s wrong with the concept excluding the abuses of the practice.
The bible repeatedly refers to God as “a jealous god” requiring our fidelity and barring the worship of other gods.
A comment was made about finding polyandry distasteful and another about the longterm effects of the polygamy revelation. I’ve been mulling this as a court case wends it way through my neck of the woods.
As far as I can see, the negative result from polyandry is that men may not know that the child they are raising is genetically theirs. Adoptive parents and step parents will tell you that is the least of parenting, but I allow it ad an argument that genetic links are important to some people.
For the downside of polygamy I submit http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-convictions-pave-the-way-for-more-charges-in-polygamous-community-of-bountiful
For the TLDR version, the parents are being charged with trafficking for sexual purposes of their 13 daughter. Part of the evidence is the recording made by Jeffs as he raped her a week after she turned 14.
A fourteen year old girl was raped by a prophet as a direct off-shoot of Joseph’s revelation and the parents didn’t feel remorse-they justified it. Now y’all can get back to debating which 14 year old my sentence just referred to.
I guess we should be jealous then and apparently Jesus didn’t get the message?
Joseph NEVER advocated polyamory, and if Hales is right, didn’t advocate for sexual polyandry either. The D&C makes no case for polyamory or polyandry either. To advocate for such an immoral practice is not supported by scripture or historical LDS positions. I’m really tired of Howard’s hobby horse that constantly veers off the topic. If you can’t stay on topic, don’t comment. (I’d prefer you just didn’t comment, especially on polygamy posts. We’re tired of what you defending lack of fidelity in marriage and it’s off topic. No prophet ever tried to defend what you are trying to defend. Please stop.)
I’m not advocating anything immoral, I just advocated for “God guided LDS polygamy”
There were advantages (to the church) in the early practice of polygamy at the expense of those involved. Jacob 2 lays out what polygamy does to women and children, and I have examples from my own family history confirming the heavy costs.
But that doesn’t explain why Joseph’s practice of plural marriage was so different than the later practice. Although Joseph didn’t appear to have a problem with polyandry, Orson Pratt argued in 1852 that polyandry was counter to the order of God, because scripture says you can’t serve 2 masters. Whatever Joseph was thinking, Brigham and later leaders seemed to take in a very different direction.
As far as the jealousy component, women sometimes made the argument that polygamy was ideal because it helped them overcome the curse of Eve – having any desire towards their husband. The ideal arrangement seemed to be fairly platonic, so you didn’t care who your husband added to the family. Children developed much closer relationships with their moms, since dads were rarely in the picture. I’ve often wondered if our elevation of motherhood stems from this common role of women left behind.
“I’m not advocating anything immoral…”
Yeah right Howard. From your previous guest post here about not telling the bishop: https://wheatandtares.org/2013/06/12/morality-just-dont-tell/
“This profile stated that I occasionally enjoy a beer or glass of wine and I like to make love without involving the church.”
“I indicated a preference for drinking and making love without involving the church”
“I did it because I was specifically looking for “don’t tell” and I easily found it!”
And then you told us about the women who broke temple covenants with you, specifically the Law of Chastity.
“So now I know of probably a dozen active Mormon women who don’t tell, for example; one a wine drinking temple goer who says she would probably make love without being married if she fell in love with someone.”
“There’s a temple going widow who’s already made love to one man since her husband passed and is considering doing it again.”
“I found a widow who loved to get a baby sitter and take a short road trips with her husband just outside her stake boundary so they could combine a bottle of wine with making love and she wants to do this again, marriage is optional.”
——-
Does this making love involve some sort of sealing ceremony?
“… I just advocated for “God guided LDS polygamy””
Uh, no. I think you need to re-read D&C 132 because what you’ve described in your own words is far from anything that sounds like “God guided LDS polygamy.” You’re a lecher, far, far removed from anything ever taught by the LDS Church. You’re in immoral wretch, seeking to justify your sins. This is not “God guided LDS polygamy”, but clearly breaking temple covenants. Don’t lie to anyone here when you’ve clearly admitted what an immoral, temple covenant breaker you are. You’re advocating for free love, no strings attached and have no taint of trying to tie “making love” to sealing ceremonies. You’re disgusting, and clearly lying about advocating for “God guided LDS polygamy.” Your own words condemn you.
MH,
Your distain for me is palpable, but bearing false witness is going way too far isn’t brother? “then you told us about the women who broke temple covenants with you, specifically the Law of Chastity.” No I didn’t. Please provide this quote. This did not happen. Perhaps you missed my response to Hedgehog? “…these were just getting to know you discussions.” And by the way at the time I had no temple covenants to break, so how could I have possibly have been the “immoral, temple covenant breaker” you falsely accuse me of being ass hat?
“What about selfishness, possessiveness, jealously and personal insecurity?”
So far as a stable environment for raising children would be concerned, I think it would be detrimental to the situation to inject that as well. Plenty of folk find it hard enough with just the two of them. Commenters above have already pointed out the effectively single parent mothers resulting from polygyny.
“But today we can know can’t we and we can avoid reproducing with close relatives.”
In theory. But it’s an added layer of complexity in navigating relationships, having to work out how closely related you are to someone. Everyone carrying around their family trees and DNA certification! And that’s only going to work in societies where it’s possible to get that information, and those involved have the wherewithall to pay for it, so elitist as well. It overcomplicates things in my view. I favour simplicity.
You know MH, it’s really fascinating that you now choose to viciously attack my June 2013 OP. I did an email search and that OP was posted by you after a very friendly email exchange between the two of us that included a lot of personal sharing on your part. You had an opportunity to read it before posting it and you had nothing negative to say about it then. Instead you wrote: “Howard, thanks for the post. I have it scheduled for Wed.” Thanks for the post? But now I’m a lecher and immoral wretch? Later you even emailed me to let me know that post made #5 in the top ten Wheat & Tares posts that month. Everything going okay in your life bro?
It’s a slight aside, but I found this amusing – “What kind of a bumbling God would start such a pernicious practice that would wreck enormous havoc for generations?”
The Bible is replete with instances. Patriarchy, chosen people, head covering, do unto others. There’s not a single commandment, advice, or suggestion that has not been done completely wrong, causing havoc for not only generations but millennia. It didn’t help to have prophets to try and explain things better or even sending the Son of God, people find many ways to take the message and run in the wrong direction, thinking it’s right. None of us are immune, none of us can adequately say that we’ve understood the mind of God perfectly, that we’ve made no mistakes in interpreting Their will.
I think God has been doing the best They can with what They have, and we will be judged on how well we have done with what we have been given.
MH. Actually there is a reasonable argument to be made for polyandry from D&C 132:41-42. It is a weird scripture but the principle is in there. Just a thought.
Dave – Oz, I am aware of the polyandry idea and even posted on the topic: https://wheatandtares.org/2016/06/26/does-dc-132-support-polyandry/
However, clearly there is no historical precedent for widespread practice of polyandry in the historical LDS community. Parley P Pratt married a woman who hadn’t legally divorced from her husband. The husband murdered Pratt.
Howard, if I was mistaken that you didn’t “make love” with these specific women, certainly you have made multiple comments about living a polyamorous life, and likely with LDS women who broke their temple covenants. If you either haven’t made temple covenants, or were exed, (or haven’t been exed but should be) you’re still under condemnation under D&C 132. In all your comments supporting polyamory, you’ve never claimed any sealing with making love to these women, don’t claim any FLDS, AUB or other religious authority to be making love to women–it sure seems marriage/sealing ceremony has nothing to do with making love. Just don’t Tell!
Therefore neither the first half nor second half of your statement “I’m not advocating anything immoral, I just advocated for “God guided LDS polygamy”” can’t possibly be true. It’s a flat out lie. You are advocating immorality, and are wresting the scriptures to claim that what you practice is *God guided LDS polygamy.* What you’ve espoused here on the blog is certainly is not *God guided LDS polygamy.* It sounds more like an orgy with no religious connotations whatsoever.
You are immoral, and from what you’ve said here, seem to prey on LDS women for polyamorous relationship, IMO. I see nothing godly about “making love” with no sealing ceremony. But you’ve somehow rationalized it, and espouse breaking taboos to get closer to God. Whatever. This is a false gospel, and I view such pronouncements as literally taking God’s name in vain to justify whoredoms. You sound more like John C. Bennett than Joseph Smith or even Warren Jeffs for that matter. You sound like the people Jacob railed against in the Book of Mormon.
And yes your post caused us to put more scrutiny into guest posts. It was definitely a learning experience for us; we don’t allow just anyone to post anything they want anymore, thanks to you. Did you notice you never got another post?
MH you’re far more than just mistaken but I’ll leave you to answer to God for your outrageous lies, vicious two faced personal attack, and blatant false witness!
You know how sometimes moms say “Use your words,” to help their kids end a fight? I’m going to suggest the opposite here.
I can’t see how having a part time spouse is good for a marriage. Even if there are consenting adults full of independent lifestyles it seems that growing closer emotionally and spiritually would be difficult to achieve when you’re together only once-in-a-while. The fullest measure of all forms of intimacy comes from time together, focus, laboring in general to fill one another’s needs, and making sacrifices to those ends. Becoming one seems impossible IN THE FULLEST SENSE OF THE TERM if there are others in the marriage to divide–not multiply–time, focus, devotion and laboring to fill needs.
Too, there’s gratification imbalance. It isn’t a matter of possessiveness or jealousy. The math doesn’t add up. Perhaps one spouse has a stronger libido than the other, so one could argue (and many have) that having another partner can help mitigate the discrepancy. In theory it sounds fine on paper. But in reality, the lesser libido spouse may need to be held and/or to talk even if they don’t particularly desire sex. Multiple spouses literally take time for that away–the more the spouses, the less time each has………except for the one married to all of them. That person’s gratification never goes unfulfilled, including the talking, cuddling, afterglow, etc.
Imbalances inevitably cause some degree of loss, hurt, frustration, anger, disillusionment, and other destructive feelings. It strains marriage rather than strengthen it.
Monogamy allows two people to give their ALL to one other person. It allows those two to develop more layers of understanding HOW to know one another, sacrifice for each other, keep things in balance, and always be there for one another. It gives them far more opportunity to overcome stagnancy, boredom, and taking each their for granted. There’s no excuse for saying, “I don’t have time for you right now because I have 4 or 5 or 8 other wives who need me too..” You’re left alone to fend for yourself, and the more you do that, the less you need your husband, the less you care about him, and love wanes. Same if it’s one wife with multiple husbands.
I can’t tell you how many times in priesthood meeting I’ve heard guys say that men would never put up with a matriarchal order and plural marriage where they shared their wife. Women will put up with a lot of tough things, they say. They shrug their shoulders and say they don’t want to practice polygamy in mortality, but in heaven it would probably be great cause the women would be magically blessed to love it and they’d all be beautiful. So no hassles, no pressures, no worries, and lots of variety! If that isn’t self-centered I don’t know what is. It’s like heaven would be their adolescent fantasies come true.
I honestly don’t see how there could ever be a circumstance of “God-guided ” polygamy, in time or Eternity. In every way it seems to be a lower, even counterfeit, form of marriage. And again, I’ve never read of a single good thing it brought about that couldn’t have been done better through monogamy. But the sorrows it brings are great and terrible.
Those guys JTD, I can guarantee will have broken covenants in 5 years time. It’s tanatamount to stating that intent.
My only way of tolerating all this craziness is knowing that my dear husband has no desire for it.
Angela says, The bible repeatedly refers to God as “a jealous god” requiring our fidelity and barring the worship of other gods.
I’m not at all sure that I like the implications of that in a plural marriage context, given the patriarchal angle of the temple sealing, with wife as priestess and queen unto her husband. It seems to me that it could allow for any number of faithful priestesses per priest, as long as the priest remained faithful to the Father.
To answer another of Angela’s questions, there are, and have been historically, many reasons for men and women to marry other than physical fidelity. The primary one, since time immemorial until very recently, was economic security (especially for women, but to some extent for both). Others include genuine affection, common interest, family concern, social pressure, and so on. Many of those reasons still operate today. The notion of “true love” and “soulmates” is relatively recent, and the idea of marrying for love even more recent. The model for centuries was wife at home and mistress on the side for many men; the idea that men would want to, and women would expect men to, leave the wife and marry the mistress was an aberration until the last half of the 20th century.
Most Christian religions paid lip service to monogamy but bowed to “reality;” many other faiths recognized some type of concubinage or polygyny; we are historically a rare faith in being serious about chastity before and fidelity within marriage. In that sense, it is another way in which we are called to transcend our natural instincts.
After reading all of that, I am left with only this, that by their fruits shall they be known. Weighed by that measure with ample historical and contemporary evidence, the fruit is rotten to its core. Measured by the standard of the rest of scripture and thousands of years of Christian wisdom, 132 fails to reflect the face of Jesus. And tested against my own heart and soul, it withers. Polygamy fails to pass every test of truth and goodness that the scriptures have given me to employ. I feel myself moving finally towards being done deceiving myself in order to fit in with what the church has taught.
What bothers me most about any of this is the fact that teenage girls, some not even 14, were being married to older men in the church for years. Surely they did not do this out of romantic love and their own free will. They were being “given” like a piece of property.
New Iconoclast: Yes, I’ve posted on the history of marriage, and I do understand why people married historically: usually for economic reasons. But my question is about why anyone would marry today if there is no expectation of spousal fidelity. I suppose there are open marriages, but again, what is the point? Why not just remain single if there is no expectation of fidelity? Women no longer need to get married in order to be financially supported (and marriage is not a guarantee of such in current times), so if the fidelity only runs one way, why marry at all? I don’t understand the benefit.
Frank Pellet:
So I take it that you agree with me that we have a bumbling God whose prophets start pernicious practices that wrecks havoc over generations and you hint at Biblical examples, with which I counter agree.
So tell me again why do we follow these prophets who make God look like that? Follow the prophet, he knows the way…. to hell?
Adam… (Sorry, I’m too dim witted to remember the rest of your name)
You wrote (and everyone got distracted with other jousting):
“…when the leadership pickings were obviously at their slimmest,…”
Bull shit.
Lets play some theological/leadership fantasy football.
On your side I give you all of the current Q15 or if you prefer the same team when Gordon B. was still chipper.
On my side I take: ol ‘Breed em’ Young, Heb (more cows than wives) Kimball, Mormon Thunder Jeddy Grant, the Pratt bros, Syndey (unstable) Rigdon, Ollie Cowdery (probably wrote half the Book of Mormon), poetic W. Squared Phelps, Fat Willy Richards, even fatter GA Smith (who started the MMM), Limpy John Taylor (after he took a bullet in the arse for the prophet), accident prone Woof Woof Woodruff., David fear not (shoulda kept his head down low) Patten, Lorenzo Snow and his little sister Eliza R. Snow.
Let the game begin!!!
Seriously how can you believe we had weak leadership?
Does anyone else think this way?
One of the reasons Mormonism succeeded while many other radical religions did not is because we had unusually GOOD leadership, if not somewhat imperfect from time to time..
And for those who are offended, good. Before correlation it was customary for Mormons to give each other nick names to keep things from getting so d***d boring. So I a following a family tradition.
I’m confused. Why is Howard’s name getting drug through the mud over the article that Mormon Heretic linked? Howard was not sleeping with these women so why is he being accused of such? Someone help me out here.
Mike, I am no expert of early church history but I do feel extremely confident that the available talent pool has a HUGE impact on the cream that ends up rising to the top. It’s a numbers game and an experience game (which is why apostles in modern times are basically always individuals who grew up in the church and whose Mormon lineage goes back generations). I know you threw out some big, flashy names but the truth is, receiving personal revelation is a very difficult, messy process. Receiving revelation on behalf of an entire church must be next to impossible. The lack of life experience, gospel experience, and simply not having very many members to choose from results in Brigham Young (bless his heart) being the best God had to choose from. I’m not judging. I’m just saying, I take his actions in particular with a huge grain of salt. He was giving an impossible task and I suspect God graded his efforts on a curve if you know what I mean.
Side note: Thanks for reading my comments and responding. I was pretty sad that they got discarded in favor of taking Howard behind the woodshed and beating him to a pulp.
So, New Iconoclast, men never kept the commandment to not commit adultery, so we change the commandment? Seems to me Brigham used much the same argument, often quoted in Sunday School lessons, to the disgust and offence of every grieving wife in the congregation.
Next time someone (it won’t be a woman) uses that old chestnut, I walk out the door. Never again will I assent to such twaddle being quoted by remaining in my seat.
Adamloumeau:
I was going to delete the part about bovine excretion before clicking the post comment box, sorry about that. Thank you for not taking it too hard.
As for Howard, I like is contrary remarks even if they are wrong. Makes me think and perhaps we find nuggets of gold in the fiery refutations of him. He is an important part of the conversation as is his rhetorical pulpification. Being wrong has a place among us, eh? (I hope so, ’cause I am wrong often, ask my wife and kids.)
I think sometimes circumstances make the man or woman. It is a numbers game, but it only takes a few to make a big difference. One example is Abraham Lincoln. Without the War for Southern Independence he would probably have been a rather crappy president. He did so many stupid things and stomped around with a morose attitude most of the time. His wife was crazy. But his tenacity and some of his speeches are ageless. Gettysburg address for one, which would never have been given but for that battle that turned the tide of the war. Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest generals ever to step foot on a battle field, and without the war he would have lived an obscure life.
(As a Southern sympathizer I personally think Lincoln went too far and his political rival in the close 1864 election McClellon was right. The election was close until we lost Atlanta, then victory became possible. He contended it was not worth the bloodshed. Why not a USA and a CSA? Look at South America, it is divided up into more than a dozen countries for reasons less significant than the issues dividing us then. Except we might not have been able to win the world wars in the next century, I don’t know. )
****
Another difference we might discover is what kind of a job rating do we give our current leaders. My fantasy team of church leaders faced horrendous challenges and, in spite of their colorful reputations and deficiencies, actually solved many of their problems and the church grew and developed into something pretty remarkable. Polygamy is only one of a few failures that we can lay at their feet.
I would give today’s leaders extremely low job approval ratings. We face daunting problems and they take very little effective action. Revelation may require some work (some counter examples in the Bible seem to require no work: Saul/Paul, Alma, Balaam’s ass, etc) but it is obvious they are not doing a very good job. The church is floundering and sinking while the prophet worshipping sub-current continues to run strong and they spend too many sermons sucking up to each other. Too much making of lame excuses and hiding problems that can no longer be hidden. To the degree the LDS church fails in its mission, they are to blame.
My fantasy teams don’t have to beat each other. They have to muster the courage and will to succeed and motivate others to succeed against the fate they are given in their own time. The fact that we sit here and blame people dead now over a century for our problems only highlights the lack of effective modern leadership.
“I was going to delete the part about bovine excretion before clicking the post comment box, sorry about that. Thank you for not taking it too hard.”
No worries my friend. I’ve got some thick skin.
Great post. I have a few thoughts:
-Perhaps I’m too harsh on the leaders of old. I think you are right that they solved a lot of problems that we conveniently forget about and I too hate all of this “monday morning quarterbacking” about leaders of the past, whether inside or outside the church (Founding Fathers were racist slave owners so every good thing they did can be thrown out the window). That being said, I think the church thrived because Joseph Smith was that amazing and he set into motion something so extraordinary that it was tough to mess up too bad after he died. Makes sense since, you know, he restored Jesus Christ’s church and the lost truths of the gospel.
-I should be more clear. I think today’s leaders are better able to be leaders (i.e. they have more spiritual “talent” if you will). That does NOT mean I think they are doing a good job in actually leading. There is simply not enough diversity of thought/experience for the leadership to govern as effectively as they are capable of. Furthermore, society is progressing at a rapid pace from a knowledge standpoint (and sometimes a wisdom standpoint as well). Our conservative church is not built to progress that fast. Do you disagree?
-Finally, I believe we are all getting caught up in the moment. We are living in a tiny sliver of human history. My advice would be for all of us to take a breathe and allow the history to unfold, no matter how frustrating that must be. I imagine many saints had the exact same feelings while blacks were being denied the priesthood. Progress takes time and in the moment, the church feels hopelessly adrift. Let’s see how things play out and then we can comment on history when it’s actually history.
Also, I think polygamy as a positive enterprise is something worthy of discussion. I don’t know about any agenda that Howard does or does not have (where did you go big guy?). But the thought that polygamy is only a terrible practice does not ring true to me. I do think that polygamy as a societal practice is never going to work out and obviously, that’s the sort of implication that was taking place in the early church. But on a case-by-case basis, I am not at all sold that polygamy is wrong. I’m way too liberal for that kind of talk.
Adam: Like an alligator to a rotting carcass it can smell a mile off, as soon as the spectre of polygamy rears its head, Howard always pops up seemingly out of nowhere to lecture everyone about his own polyamorous exploits and how the rest of us are just too small-minded to embrace the love that dare not speak its name.
But MH’s post here is specifically about whether Alger was a polygamous bride (and the tidbit that she & her family claimed this) or an adulterous affair (the well known position of Cowdery & Emma), so we’d rather keep to the topic at hand than broaden every discussion with the “P” word into a slug-fest over Howard’s pitch of the startling array of benefits to Polygamy . . . if you act now!
Hahaha, well I can’t speak of Howard’s past or his secret intentions but you made me laugh Angela. So everyone has already hashed out the topic of polygamy huh? How unfortunate. Sounds like a more interesting topic than Alger and Joseph specifically but maybe I’m in the minority.
Just for kicks and giggles, is everyone so anti-polygamy because of Howard’s apparent “free love” position or is the group really saying nothing good can come from polygamy? And how on earth is a free love lifestyle anything like polygamy?
“is everyone so anti-polygamy because of Howard’s apparent “free love” position” No, everyone is anti-polygamy and also anti-Howard’s version of polyamory.
“is the group really saying nothing good can come from polygamy?” Individuals have shared different views, but on the whole consensus is that benefits are outweighed by the negatives (particularly to women and children), and there are far more benefits and fewer drawbacks to monogamy.
“how on earth is a free love lifestyle anything like polygamy?” In that 1) children are raised in an unstable or socially unacceptable environment that they feel they must hide from peers, and 2) one-sided fidelity leaves the loyal spouse vulnerable and unsupported (lopsided ratios problem). And my above-stated conclusion that without fidelity, what is the point of marriage at all? The point of marriage is to pledge fidelity and support to one another. If that is breached or doesn’t exist, then on what basis does the marriage exist? (In contemporary life that is. As pointed out, when women couldn’t earn their way or hold property, they often married for economic reasons–these marriages were already exploitative.)
Thanks for indulging my questions Angela, particularly since I am sure you have uttered these same sentiments a time or two already on this forum. Let me ask some questions and we’ll see if we can get anywhere.
1. For starters, how can we talk about polygamy as if all forms of polygamy are the same? Is it fair to say that a man who is married to two women is different than a man who is married to three women? And that a man who is married to three women is different than a man who is married to ten women? What about a woman who is married to two men? This is something that has always perplexed me when people talk about polygamy as a concept. Seems like we are lumping A LOT of disparate situations together when that is not really accurate.
2. More benefits and less drawbacks to monogamous marriage huh? Is it fair to suggest that a lot of monogamous marriages leave people feeling unfulfilled and lonely? We glamorize monogamous marriage but the truth is, lots of people are left feeling unhappy and underwhelmed in monogamous marriage. Now, does that mean polygamy is the answer for these people? No, not necessarily. It’s probably not the answer. But my point is, once again, we are lumping a lot of different kinds of people in a lot of different kinds of relationships together, just because they fall under the category of “married”.
3. I’m not sure what the basis is for saying children in polygamous families are raised in an unstable environment. Where is that coming from? Are there examples of polygamous offspring growing up in chaos? I’m sure there are. By why is this type of relationship inherently unstable? Also, the fact that it is socially unacceptable is a lousy argument. Racially mixed marriages used to be illegal and highly unaccepted by society. Perhaps we should not let that be our standard.
4. The point of marriage is fidelity? Yuck, no thanks. Don’t get me wrong, my wife and I are very faithful to each other and plan on continuing down that path. But that is not at all the point of our marriage. Fidelity is about controlling the other spouse as much as it is about displaying loyalty to your partner. My wife works 40 hours a week outside the home and I do not control her, nor do I wish to. She can talk to whoever she wants to, however she wants to. She can go to lunch with whomever she pleases, whenever she pleases, how often she pleases, and she doesn’t need to clear that with me in any way, shape, or form. I like fidelity but I am SO GLAD my marriage is not built upon that. Why do you consider marriage without fidelity to be pointless?
“I like fidelity but I am SO GLAD my marriage is not built upon that. Why do you consider marriage without fidelity to be pointless?”
Fidelity is equated with trust in modern society.
I don’t need to be married for financial reasons. Our last child is almost launched, so we don’t stay together for the children. Excellent marriages work due to trust, deep emotional bonds and physical compatibility.
Polygamous marriage dilutes emotional bonds, adds a sexual competitor to the relationship, and decreases trust.
Modern polyamory is just sexual play with trusted clean partners. There is no serious long term commitment. When a partner in that game gets sick, they are out of the game. When someone gets old, they are abandoned for younger partners. Partners may express love and appreciation but they are not there for the long haul. A correlation can be found in communes. Communes are wonderful and all about free-love and group community when everyone is young and healthy. The dynamic is not set up to include the infirm.
Only in monogamy does one find bonded partners who are — usually — willing to stay in the relationship through the harsher trials that life throws at us.
“Fidelity is equated with trust in modern society”
And racially mixed marriages used to be equated with impurity (or whatever backwards ideas society used to have). Perhaps that’s a bad analogy since I am not criticizing monogamous relationships. Once again, I am in a monogamous relationship and plan on continuing that pattern. But I do not equate fidelity with trust. Wow, that’s big. So does that mean that someone who is sexually faithful to their spouse can always be trusted? Of course not. They may betray their spouse in other ways. So really, fidelity is only equated to trust in a society where spouses expect to control one another. My wife and I are faithful because we actively choose to be, not because fidelity completely embodies what trust means in our relationship.
“Only in monogamy does one find bonded partners who are — usually — willing to stay in the relationship through the harsher trials that life throws at us.”
Honestly, that has not been my experience in life. I mean, it’s been my experience in my personal life but not when it comes to my friends, family members, and acquaintances. I’ve been deeply disappointed in the institution of monogamous marriage as I look around. Lots of unhappy marriages and lots of people who seem to be bailing pretty easily on their marriage. In reality, there is only one kind of relationship in which people are willing to stay in the relationship through harsher trials and it’s a (usually) happy one. People are really happy and fulfilled in their relationship will stick through rough seas.
Do any polygamous marriages qualify? I don’t have any evidence of such but I don’t see why they couldn’t in theory.
You are conflating a lot of weird things into the one word “fidelity.” Fidelity means “faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support.” Working in a job, having lunch or dinner or drinks with a person of the opposite sex, none of these things are evidence of infidelity. Your comments are perplexing.
Obviously monogamy isn’t a panacea. Many marriages fail. IMO, all polygamous marriages hinge on inequality and exploitation which means they also fail, clearly at higher rates.
Once again, though, we’ve gotten far afield from the topic of MH’s post.
“Working in a job, having lunch or dinner or drinks with a person of the opposite sex, none of these things are evidence of infidelity. Your comments are perplexing.”
First of all, I think there is some cherry picking going on. This was only a small part of what I wrote. Nevertheless, I’m not sure why this is perplexing. I didn’t say those things are evidence of infidelity. What I was referring to is the common practice of limiting your spouse’s contact with members of the opposite sex, particularly in a one-on-one situation, so as to ensure that infidelity can never take place. Surely everyone is familiar with this general practice, particularly within our own religion. The point I am making is that people feel the need to control and limit their spouse’s opposite sex interactions if they view fidelity as the foundation of their marriage (and by fidelity we are all referring to sexual fidelity and not the general concept of fidelity in life). Most of the time, people don’t even realize they are actively controlling/limiting their spouse’s interactions. They just have to be the “jealous type” and the message is forever received.
“IMO, all polygamous marriages hinge on inequality and exploitation which means they also fail, clearly at higher rates.”
Why all polygamous marriages? That’s what I’m getting at. Why does this have to be the root of all polygamy? I know these are philosophical questions but they are important ones to answer. You don’t have to want to become a polygamist some day for these answers to be useful. They touch on a lot of (lazy) assumptions people make about relationships. Now, a “lazy” assumption isn’t necessarily a wrong one but you can’t really know if you never question why you make these assumptions in the first place. As to straying off topic, I’m happy to join in on any comments that are more directly related to the original post. But I see no reason why this discussion of polygamy has to be stopped. Interesting conversation is interesting conversation right?
To bring this back on topic, Adam, perhaps you could answer these questions from the original post.
—-
If Joseph is being sealed to other men’s wives, isn’t he a bit like King David “stealing” Uriah’s wife that the prophet Nathan condemned?
Why do you think Brian makes the case that no sex was involved for some of these wives? Is it to assuage our feelings about Joseph Smith?
Do you believe Brian is correct that there were no sexual relations between Joseph and his teen and polyandrous wives?
Adamloumeau,
Each blog has it’s own flavor and rules, and some of your questions would be answered with more exposure here (like butting heads with certain commenters). Since we don’t want to run you off with some of the atypical nastiness that’s been in this convo, here’s some info. Although we strive for all views, the audience for this blog tends to follow the bloggernacle in general in running more progressive/critical of church history. As such, you will be hard-pressed to find a stereotypical mainstream Mormon viewpoint that polygamy was obviously 100% inspired, regardless if it is a desirable system. The only commenter who tended to consistently defend polygamy did so not out of loyalty to the modern institutional church, but of an honest belief that polyamory can be a really good, inspired, enlightened system of marriage. For the rest of our typical commenting audience (some in the church, some out out of the church), the viewpoint toward historical Mormon polygamy is pretty negative, which likely colors our view of polyamory in general. On other blogs you’d get a different mix.
As to staying on topic of the original post, it’s more a courtesy to the original author of the post who went to the effort of writing it. We do love interesting conversation, though, so if you’d like a particular discussion to be hashed out more fully, you can either suggest a post topic for one of the permas to tackle or contact us to do a guest post. (But make sure it’s one you won’t mind someone bringing up years later in a personal attack, because apparently that’s a thing we’re doing now.)
Well played Mormon Heretic
1. I don’t think he is similar to King David. After all, David had the title of king. He had power and prestige that put him in a unique position unlike any other man. Granted, Joseph Smith was the prophet and leader of the church but he also famously said he teaches people correct principles and then they govern themselves. In other words, Joseph did not even try to wield the same type of power that King David had. Furthermore, David essentially had Uriah killed by commanding that he be placed in the most dangerous of circumstances on the battlefield, for the express purpose of trying to steal his wife…….because he had already slept with her. Not sure at all how these situations are similar. And finally, going back to my original comments about monogamy and control, I don’t think he “stole” anyone simply because this woman wanted to marry him. Is she her husband’s property? She can leave her husband if she so desires. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. But marriage should not mean controlling your spouse.
2. I think the “no sex” argument is an important one to consider. Going back to my original post in this chain, we will never know the truth about whether Joseph had sex with certain wives but I think the possibility that he did not is important because it makes us realize that we make all kinds of assumptions about polygamy, particularly Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages, when in fact we do not know the whole story. The saints in general were trying out all kinds of ideas in the early church. Let’s all take a step back and respect what we do not know before we wantonly cast aspersions about.
3. I have no idea on the third question but here is what I do believe. I believe there is mountains of evidence that Joseph Smith was an amazing, once-in-a-century type of human being. That does not mean he did not make mistakes. But I absolutely 100% do not believe Joseph Smith preyed on teenagers for his own sexual gratification. And let’s cut the crap, that’s what people are dancing around when we talk about this subject. Back in those days, they did not have the type of research we have today on typical brain development (remember, all studies are basically evidence-based stereotypes and their findings are not true in all cases). They also did not have such clear lines between childhood (0-17) and adulthood (18+) that modern society has artificially placed on us today. Teenagers also intermingled with adults in a close knit society in a way that they do not in modern times. My guess is people were probably treated like adults the second they started acting like adults. Not that complicated. Everyone matures at a different rate. Regardless of Joseph Smith’s original intentions, I do not believe for one second that he was having sex with a girl/woman who clearly displayed a lack of ability to handle such mature behavior and give meaningful consent.
“….. or is the group really saying nothing good can come from polygamy?”
That’s absolutely what I’m saying, insofar as compared to faithful, loving, devoted monogamy. In monogamy spouses aren’t coping with a part time husband/wife. Children aren’t coping with a part time parent. “Coping” is an optimistic word choice here. In reality I think “suffering” is far more accurate.
Monogamy doesn’t fail, people in it do. But polygamy fails people by virtue of the fact that part time relationships rob those involved–robs them of the fullest measure of time together, devotion, commitment, emotional intimacy, physical intimacy, etc. Even if everyone wants to give their all, there simply isn’t enough of them or time to do that. And if you give your all to one spouse, you have nothing left to give any others.
Wow, what a great post Mary Ann! Thank you so much! I do want to show courtesy to the individual who started this post and will strive to stay more on topic (or at least not insist on only going off topic, how’s that?). I do believe conversations should be organic, living things that can go in various directions based on the same original inspiration. Hopefully that makes sense.
“Although we strive for all views, the audience for this blog tends to follow the bloggernacle in general in running more progressive/critical of church history. As such, you will be hard-pressed to find a stereotypical mainstream Mormon viewpoint that polygamy was obviously 100% inspired, regardless if it is a desirable system.”
I completely understand and hopefully I have not been coming across like I am defending any traditional viewpoint of anything. I’m all for critical thinking and not falling in line, etc etc. At the same time, we shouldn’t constantly second guess what happened almost 200 years ago when we don’t actually have all the facts. I try to have positive interpretations of people/events unless doing so is not as rational as a negative interpretation would be. And for me, negative interpretations of Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages or polygamy in general tend to be lazy rather than cutting edge. That’s not to say my perspective is right or that the lazy argument is the wrong argument. Like everyone else involved in these discussions, I’m just trying to flesh out truth.
Adam, if you want to listen to Brian Hales arguments that Joseph didn’t have sex with his polyandrous and teen brides (he agrees with you), see the following 2 links:
Polyandry: https://gospeltangents.com/2017/06/27/mormon-polyandry-more-than-one-husband/
Teen Brides: https://gospeltangents.com/2017/06/30/joseph-smiths-teen-brides/
Fanny Alger is an interesting question about whether she was a teenager. Brian says she was 19, others 17, and some even earlier. Historian Don Bradley speculates Fanny was pregnant, but records are vague on that point. Brian notes any display of affection (even a hug or kiss) would have been considered out of bounds by Emma. Given that Oliver accused Joseph of adultery (as did Emma) with regards to Fanny, it seems to me that the relationship involved more than a kiss.
Fanny Part 1: https://gospeltangents.com/2017/06/18/fanny-alger-polygamy-1/
Fanny Part 2: https://wp.me/p8l6gx-dI
Thank you Rick! Just so we are clear, my basic point is it’s okay to say we don’t know some things. It’s a gross practice to just have cynical interpretations of people and events whenever we want to and it’s an even grosser practice to have cynical interpretations of otherwise great people. Maybe Joseph Smith had an adulterous relationship with a 17 year-old. Who knows? But if that’s the case, then we should probably re-evaluate a lot of assumptions we have about monogamy rather than bury an amazing man with an amazing lifetime of righteous deeds. If the choice is between the two, I’ll pick the former over the latter almost every time.
Adam, you wrote:
“Maybe Joseph Smith had an adulterous relationship with a 17 year-old. Who knows? But if that’s the case, then we should probably re-evaluate a lot of assumptions we have about monogamy rather than bury an amazing man with an amazing lifetime of righteous deeds. If the choice is between the two, I’ll pick the former over the latter almost every time.”
What actual assumptions about monogamy should we re-evaluate Adam? I’d be interested in your answer.
You caution against making assumptions–about Joseph, polygamy, and monogamy. Yet all any of us can do is study something to the best of our ability and learn what we can. Assuming is inevitable: if I jump out of a plane at 35,000 feet without a parachute I assume I will die–everything I’ve studied on the matter leads me to that correct assumption. But I agree that we must always be willing to question what we think we know lest we close our minds off to further light and knowledge.
You state that if Joseph had an affair with a 17-year-old we should probably re-evaluate assumptions about monogamy?–such as?–that monogamy isn’t the Lord’s preferred form of marriage because a prophet cheated on his wife with a much younger woman?–or that if Joseph cheated monogamy must be a bad thing rather than Joseph did a bad thing? And if he had such an affair, why wouldn’t we re-evaluate the man who had the affair?? If you cheated on your wife I’d question assumptions about you, not monogamy.
“If you cheated on your wife I’d question assumptions about you, not monogamy.”
That’s fine but I’m not Joseph Smith. And if you knew me well enough to think I was a Joseph Smith type of person, I sure hope you wouldn’t be so quick to re-evaluate me. But that’s an extreme hypothetical situation of course. Hopefully you get the drift.
“What actual assumptions about monogamy should we re-evaluate Adam? I’d be interested in your answer.”
Let’s look at other marriage examples to illustrate my point. All things being equal, is it better for someone to marry a person of their same race than someone of a different race? Well, studies have shown that couples who have more similarities in their backgrounds are bound to do better in marriage. So yeah, an argument can be made that if all things were equal, someone would be better off marrying someone of their same background, which would include racial background. But does that mean that people of different races shouldn’t get married? Oh my gosh, no that is not what that means. If you are in love with someone of a different race, then get married and be happy together. Likewise, all things being equal, is it better to marry someone of the opposite sex as you or the same sex as you? Well, if you believe in the importance and joy of creating your own biological children and forming a beautiful family with your spouse, then the answer is pretty obvious. Science has not found a way for two people of the same sex to combine their genes to make a baby. But does that mean that two people of the same sex who love each other would be happier marrying someone else of the opposite gender? Oh my gosh, no that is not what that means (if you are anti-gay marriage then clearly you won’t agree with this point).
This brings us all to polygamy. Is monogamy typically the best way to go in a committed romantic relationship? Absolutely! We’re all on the same page here. Does that mean that in every situation monogamy is the best? I’m willing to say no. And I’m especially willing to say no to “monogamy worship”. Monogamy is a good thing. I like it. But let’s not bestow magical powers on monogamy. Like I said, many people in monogamous marriages feel lonely and isolated and unhappy. How much of that is the fault of monogamy? I don’t know but it certainly can create problems as well as create solutions. Each and every one of us will survive just fine by generally condemning the practice of polygamy without throwing the word “all” around. Respecting what we don’t know is okay. Respecting that life is really complicated at times, with plenty of nuance and exceptions and every different circumstance under the sun, is okay. No one is forcing you to practice polygamy.
I think that for some this conversation of polygamy is pondered from a perspective of “in the past” or is done from a “historically interesting” mindset. As a woman in the church that actively attends the temple, the fruits of Joseph Smith ( and his upfront and backdoor practice of polygamy) seem to be currently relevant… and has negatively affected my monogamous marriage. The line of , “Hey, we just don’t know all the details so…” might be accurate, and yet it often feels like a way to stall/impede progress. If we are unwilling to examine this and come to any conclusions, then we will also be simultaneously unable to make any adjustments/ course corrections.
Adam;
I agree with all points in your first reply. We have much common ground. The second post not so much. But I see you have bigger fish to fry at this point and I haven’ thought up anything else to say. Than you for your thoughts, all of them.
That’s an interesting point Lindsey. Would you be able to articulate more specifically (either with personal or hypothetical examples) of what adjustments need to be made in the church today in relation to polygamy? I guess a point I tried to make before that is worth reiterating is that not every situation is different. Joseph Smith’s polygamist experiences aren’t the same as Brigham Young’s polygamist experiences, etc etc. My goal is to tease out the details so we don’t have to condemn every single past and present polygamist or accept every single past and present polygamist. Maybe condemning the entire practice is the right answer but why? And how does my attitude impede progress today based on your personal experiences? What’s the connection?
Adam: “What I was referring to is the common practice of limiting your spouse’s contact with members of the opposite sex, particularly in a one-on-one situation, so as to ensure that infidelity can never take place. Surely everyone is familiar with this general practice, particularly within our own religion. The point I am making is that people feel the need to control and limit their spouse’s opposite sex interactions if they view fidelity as the foundation of their marriage” I definitely don’t concede that this practice is normal or common. It’s weird, IMO. Most couples I know aren’t so white-knuckled about their spouse’s opposite sex friends and colleagues. It creates a problem by fearing that problem. It adds sexual tension where none need exist.
“It’s a gross practice to just have cynical interpretations of people and events whenever we want to and it’s an even grosser practice to have cynical interpretations of otherwise great people.” Defending the indefensible is also a gross practice. I think most here are completely willing to concede that Joseph Smith did many great things including the restoration, but that doesn’t excuse his actions in all aspects of his life. George Washington was a great man, perhaps the only one who would relinquish power when everyone wanted to make him a king, but he owned slaves. Let’s get real. People are multi-faceted. Nobody should get a pass for their misdeeds just because their contribution in another area was so important. I can accept Joseph as the founder and restoring prophet but also not excuse him cheating on Emma. IMO, there’s really no other way to view the Alger affair, and given that he mostly hid his additional “marriages,” I don’t consider them valid. He pledged loyalty to Emma, then married others without her consent. That’s not OK.
The only ways in which polygamy was “OK” was that it protected women who were in horribly abusive monogamous marriages by giving them a refuge. I believe most of us would concede that point. That doesn’t make polygamy a good thing, just better than abuse. Polygamy is inherently unequal and lowers the status of women (just look at the ratios).
Patience is wearing thin, though, for the continued pursuit of this line of discussion when the rules have clearly been pointed out about sticking to the topic. You seem to have come here with a lot of assumptions about what everyone else thinks or knows but you haven’t put any time into actually looking at the many discussions on this topic that have already taken place.
“Would you be able to articulate more specifically (either with personal or hypothetical examples) of what adjustments need to be made in the church today in relation to polygamy?” I’m not Lindsey, but this is such an easy one that’s been hashed a million times on the bloggernacle. Currently, living men can be and are sealed to multiple living women in the case of divorce but the reverse is never true, and the sealing ceremony mirrors D&C 132 in alarming ways. For those of us women who take our own marriage covenants seriously, we are deeply unhappy at the idea that we will be horse-traded in Heaven because God sees us as second class chattel to be awarded to righteous men or Celestial Concubines. We are more than just a uterus. We are full people just like men are. Polygamy treats women primarily as a refillable womb or an ornament to a man’s glory, not as a full person in her own right.
Adam, Thanks for your comments. All well thought out.
Would you say monogamous marriage, divorce, polygamous marriage, same sex marriage are all equally good options for us to teach our children to pursue for their happiness? Whichever makes them happy… They are all equally viable options?
Angela: Great post. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
“I definitely don’t concede that this practice is normal or common. It’s weird, IMO. Most couples I know aren’t so white-knuckled about their spouse’s opposite sex friends and colleagues. It creates a problem by fearing that problem. It adds sexual tension where none need exist.”
I agree with your last two sentences wholeheartedly but unfortunately, I’m going to have to very very strongly disagree with you on saying this is not common practice. The older I get, the more I am completely and utterly shocked how ubiquitous this attitude is in our church. I am a stay-at-home dad. I’ve lived in three different wards in the last 6 years or so. Women treat me like I’m an affair waiting to happen. I’m not that good looking. I don’t behave in any sort of creepy way. In fact, women tend to find me charming and pleasant in a casual setting. But my wife has lamented that we can’t even set up play dates for our children practically because of how insane these attitudes are. My children are very likable and other children want to play with them, particularly my oldest child. But unless other moms want to constantly have my children over at their house, the kids can’t get together to play. I don’t care what the arrangement is. Let’s just come up with something (public park, library trip, whatever). Can’t do it. I don’t even necessarily want to be friends with any of these women. I just want to arrange a freaking play date for my lovable, popular kids. No dice.
My uncle, who could not be more straight laced if he tried, has complained of a consistent vibe he gets that if he says anything beyond hello to any sister in his ward, they act like it’s a betrayal to their husband. My uncle lives in a place that is the “mission field” so to speak. This isn’t some Utah thing at all. I have multiple relatives in which the couple is super cool and hip and more forward thinking in a lot of ways than your typical molly mormon or peter priesthood. And yet, the wives in these relationships are insanely controlling over who their husbands are around, to the point that I would laugh if it wasn’t so sad (the husbands have done nothing to deserve this treatment, it started from the day they were married). This attitude is literally everywhere in the church. Anyway, sorry for the mini rant.
“Patience is wearing thin, though, for the continued pursuit of this line of discussion when the rules have clearly been pointed out about sticking to the topic. You seem to have come here with a lot of assumptions about what everyone else thinks or knows but you haven’t put any time into actually looking at the many discussions on this topic that have already taken place.”
Wo wo wo, I gave a thorough response to the specific topic of this thread. Mormon Heretic pulled me back on topic and I responded accordingly. It’s everyone else who wanted to ignore the original topic and I was happy to oblige. But I have no problem staying on topic. Some people have been interested enough in the more general topic of polygamy and Joseph Smith, which I really don’t see as being so terribly astray from the original post anyway. The topic has organically gone in a certain direction, which apparently has made you very unhappy with me. I’ll gladly respond to whatever gets posted by others.
As for the whole men being sealed to multiple women but women only being able to be sealed to one man business, I agree with you 100%. It’s bizarre at best, sexist at worst. I guess I just don’t sweat that kind of stuff. My rule of thumb is pretty simple: if something doesn’t make sense in this life then it doesn’t make sense in the afterlife. When men act like they will have multiple wives in heaven for being righteous or because they’ve been sealed to multiple women in this life, I roll my eyes. If a man gets sealed to two women and those women don’t both want to be his wives in the afterlife, then homeboy is going to have to choose which wife he wants (assuming he hasn’t angered both of them and they both end up ditching his indecisive behind). But that’s different from polygamy. There is a lot of overlap obviously but they aren’t one and the same. For crying out loud, some societies have women being married to multiple husbands (polyandry). Are the men in these marriages simply chattel for their wives? I don’t think so. Condemn what ought to be condemned and let’s not cast such a wide net. That’s all I’m saying.
Heber13: I’d say I will teach my children the same general concepts other Mormon parents will be teaching their kids. I believe in the same principles as everyone else, more or less. But it’s like research. We should all strive to know the latest research and use that knowledge to the best of our abilities. But we should also keep in mind that research is essentially evidence-based stereotypes. And stereotypes always have exceptions. That’s the way life works. If my child decides to come out as gay at age 12 (yes, this is a reference to the girl who gave the controversial speech during sacrament meeting and got shut down), then I would gently encourage them to date people of the opposite sex once they start dating in a few years. You’re 12. Let’s pump the breaks on having your entire sexual orientation figured out, okay? But if my child turns 16 and is clearly gay or lesbian, what am I supposed to do? Tell them they won’t be able to procreate with someone they love if they choose a same sex partner? Sure. But at the end of the day, my child comes first and foremost above any sort of conformity to a set of rules and expectations. This is true across all areas of life. My children will always be loved first and foremost. And they will always be respected as unique individuals rather than walking templates.
I’ll teach my children that monogamy is the best way to go because it is with few exceptions. But if they choose a polyamorous lifestyle or even a polygamous marriage after everything we’ve taught them, then it is what it is. My job is to heavily influence and guide my children but never try to manipulate or threaten or coerce them. Teach them correct principles and then slowly, over time, allow them to govern themselves. I’ve only lived my life and have picked up bits of wisdom and insight from the myriad experiences of those around me and those who lives I read about. It’s okay to admit there is so much we don’t know and respect people who make choices in their love life that we don’t agree with. We’ve never walked in their shoes so let’s acknowledge such.
Adam: “My rule of thumb is pretty simple: if something doesn’t make sense in this life then it doesn’t make sense in the afterlife.” On that, we certainly agree. The idea that when we die we all suddenly have a celestial lobotomy that makes us forget how terrible certain things were and now we want different things – well, it strikes me as a bad way to devise an eternal reward. Why would we strive for something repugnant? It’s like saying that our eternal reward will be liver & onions, but we’ll LOVE liver & onions. Uhm, kay, but I’m not going to be super duper excited in working toward an eternal reward that sucks in real life. If the afterlife isn’t inherently appealing without a lobotomy, then why is that an eternal reward? Or is it that women all deserve hell and to be the reward of men?
Another emeritus blogger here has written about the difficulties as a single dad (he’s no longer in that situation). He was in the same boat you describe. My husband was a SAHP for a little over a year, although he is not currently. I can only say that it hasn’t been our experience that people our age behave the way you describe, but I know Justin (blogger from the site) did experience that. Perhaps it varies from ward to ward. I assume that there are some SAHMs who are very protective of their husbands and who don’t have much experience in the workplace to be able to see that these ideas are kind of ridiculous. Men and women don’t just suddenly have accidental affairs unless there are other motivating factors. The women I’ve heard defend their jealousy have often said they trust their husbands, but not other women–either they think someone wants to steal their husband or they think someone wants to make a false accusation against him. These are some paranoid individuals. Perhaps that paranoia is fueled by not being in a position to be financially independent. I haven’t seen these attitudes among dual-income couples or among more equally married couples. But again, I have only become aware of it since my 30s, and then only pretty rarely. I’ve heard people talk about it on the internet.
Historically, polygamy has entered society as a status symbol for wealthy and powerful men (the chattel argument). Within Mormonism, it’s not really an exception. The majority of men weren’t involved, just the top dogs who had their pick.
Angela, Here I’m completely off topic, responding to:
Adam, Is that “wo, wo, wo” or “whoa, whoa, whoa”? —- or both?
Your no-playdates-for-your-kids experiences seem to be a bad and unnecessary result of an attitude cultivated by some aspects of our Church culture. You and Angela may disagree on how common it is, based on your very different experiences, but you seem to agree that the attitude “creates a problem by fearing that problem. It adds sexual tension where none need exist.” Here I’ve encountered nothing like that when arranging meetings with women in the stake to work on various music programs or teaching organ at the church, etc., but I’ve never been a stay-at-home dad trying to arrange playdates for the kids. I wonder how much the culture varies from place to place in this respect.
JR: Or both? Bless your heart JR for thinking I could be so clever. Nope, I misspelled the word “whoa” and you caught me. As to how much the culture varies, I’m not sure but I do know that I’ve lived in different places and it just feels like Mormon culture in general acts this way. Like I said, my uncle lives outside of Utah/Idaho and he is super straight laced and non-threatening, yet he says he can’t have a basic conversation at church with a woman without her acting like she is betraying her husband or something. Very frustrating. I am sure there are many exceptions to my experiences and the experiences of those around me. Maybe we’re the exception but I don’t think so. #tryingtocontrolpeopleisgross
Angela: I should probably pay more respect to the historical context of polygamy. I very much get what you are saying. For me, the institution of polygamy in the early church reminds me a lot of the failed attempts to institute the Law of Consecration. The attempts failed miserably but I don’t think that meant the saints made a mistake in trying. While I don’t think polygamy is some inherently superior like the Law of Consecration, my guess is there was at least nothing wrong with Joseph Smith making the attempt. Obviously, polygamy was a mess in a lot of ways but that doesn’t mean it was all bad or that the practice itself is always flawed. And contrary to your strong objections, I could see a lot of women liking polygamy if instituted the right way and with the right people.
Adam: “my guess is there was at least nothing wrong with Joseph Smith making the attempt.” Emma would certainly beg to differ, but according to D&C 132, even if she objects to her husband taking more sexual partners, she gets no say. I don’t call that “nothing wrong.” They both entered that marriage with a vow of fidelity.
“I could see a lot of women liking polygamy if instituted the right way and with the right people.” We must have a very different definition of “a lot of women.” Are there any? Perhaps. Some couples like to watch their partner engage in sex with other people. But I certainly wouldn’t call that “a lot of women.” That argument is one that many dudebros like to trot out in defense of “theoretical” polygamy–that they imagine that many women would like it. The historical record does not show that many women did like it. And many women were miserable.
I strongly recommend you listen to the Year of Polygamy podcast or read Mormon Enigma if you think polygamy as Joseph practiced it was a good idea. It tore the original Relief Society apart with all the lies, and wounded Emma deeply. It also led to Joseph’s death in that it becoming public resulted in him destroying the printing press, which led to his incarceration and martyrdom. Doesn’t sound like a “good idea” by most definitions.
“It tore the original Relief Society apart with all the lies, and wounded Emma deeply. It also led to Joseph’s death in that it becoming public resulted in him destroying the printing press, which led to his incarceration and martyrdom.”
I didn’t know that. Very interesting. I have heard that Joseph Smith’s wives would get together on the anniversary of his death every year to celebrate him. They weren’t compelled to do so by some external force based on my understanding. I’m sure there was drama on top of drama with instituting polygamy and Joseph Smith’s wives would certainly be no exception. I can’t imagine how difficult and crazy that must have been for all involved, especially the women. Perhaps I am being cavalier about the whole thing but I can’t imagine anything other than sheer chaos when introducing something so radical. Like I said, my comparison would be to the completely failed attempts by the saints to institute the Law of Consecration. It’s utter failure does not mean it was an inherently bad idea.
“We must have a very different definition of “a lot of women.” Are there any? Perhaps. Some couples like to watch their partner engage in sex with other people.”
Haha, so glad you brought this up! That’s a very narrow definition of polygamy, which is why we’ve probably been talking past each other. Why does polygamy have to be about sex? Why couldn’t the wives choose future wives rather than the husbands? If my wife came up to me and said she had a best friend who was struggling on the dating scene but who absolutely loved our family and was interested in joining us on a trial basis (no sex involved)to see if it would work out, why would that be an inherently bad system for my wife or the best friend? “Well, that’s not how polygamy works. Men just choose other women at will to bring into the fold.” Well yes, if you decide to define polygamy as a system women could only hate, then……um…..I guess I have no choice but to agree with you that women would hate it. But that’s not what polygamy is.
“No husband would agree to that arrangement unless he was attracted to his wife’s best friend and wanted to sleep with her.” Says who? Who gets to decide how all husbands would behave? Once again, if husbands are all average, mediocre people, every single one of them, then yeah why on earth would any woman want to be involved in a polygamous marriage? “If the husband doesn’t have sex with his 2nd wife, then he is denying her the total package in a marriage.” Oh how we romanticize monogamous marriage. Lots and lots and lots of people are less-than-satisfied with their monogamous marriage. Glad everyone here has a crazy hot sex life and has found the most perfect human being to be married to and the perfect parent for their children and the perfect……..you get my drift. I see a world full of unhappy people in monogamous marriages. Would polygamy be the answer? Probably not but who knows? I want people to be happy. Having multiple moms would be a tremendous benefit. Maybe one of them wants to work full-time but can’t find a partner to support them while the other one loves to stay home. Maybe one mom gets along great with the kids who are introverts in the home and the other mom really connects with all of the extroverts. Maybe one mom is creative and the other mom is more math and science oriented. You never know.
The real interesting question is whether two guys and one woman could work out. I have my theories.
“Oh how we romanticize monogamous marriage. Lots and lots and lots of people are less-than-satisfied with their monogamous marriage.” I don’t think anyone here is actually doing this. We all agree that marriage is a lot of work and many marriages aren’t happy. Adding additional spouses doesn’t solve for that. It just means you get a lower percentage of spousal support.
“Why does polygamy have to be about sex?” It doesn’t have to be ‘about’ sex, but marriage certainly implies sex. If you’re talking about a non-sexual relationship, inviting a friend into the family, then why marry? That’s what guest rooms are for. That’s not polygamy. If you want your child to have the influence of multiple adults, again, you can achieve this without marriage. It sounds like you are describing a nanny.
Rather than just asking open questions like “Would polygamy be the answer? Probably not but who knows? ” please read up on it. There are a lot of resources out there, two of the most important ones that I’ve identified. You don’t seem to have scratched the surface yet.
When I look at the historical record on polygamy, what I see is women as property. D&C with all the giving and taking of wives and concubines exemplifies the pattern.
Not that monogamy has such a wonderful past. In the United States, it is only in my lifetime that for most people, equal protection replaced coverture.
But as to a benefit to polygamy, infant mortality rates can go down. When a man marries sisters, frequently the maternal grandmother also provides care. These extra caregivers significantly improve child survival rates.
However unless there is a high celestial child spirit death, this is not an applicable heavenly model.
“It just means you get a lower percentage of spousal support.”
The point I was trying to get at is that the wives are spouses to each other as well. Again, that’s what polygamy could be.
“It sounds like you are describing a nanny.”
So let me get this straight. If a man has a 2nd wife, that woman is either a glorified concubine or a glorified nanny? Yikes! Talk about shoving life into boxes. Perhaps my arguments seem unfair because there are so many hedges. That’s not my intention. As for the resources you suggested, why would anyone read about how polygamy was in the past to understand what polygamy could potentially be in the future? Why would someone read about the failures of the Law of Consecration in the past to catch the vision of what it could be in the future? I guess if I were serious about polygamy in my own life then it would probably be a good idea to read about the pitfalls others have faced and try to avoid those in my own life. Since this does not apply to me, I won’t worry about reading up on this stuff anytime soon (though your recommendations are appreciated and will surely be read at some point). I don’t believe polygamy is a template for which to follow and frankly, I kind of feel the same way about monogamy. Every marriage is different and lumping us all together because we are monogamous is almost silly. There is no template for life.
Interesting facts Suzanne! Loved your insights!
” If my wife came up to me and said she had a best friend who was struggling on the dating scene but who absolutely loved our family and was interested in joining us on a trial basis (no sex involved)to see if it would work out, why would that be an inherently bad system for my wife or the best friend?”
The negative for the friend is that she gets a platonic friendship with someone else’s husband rather than a mutually satisfying/sexual relationship with a committed partner. Frankly, I don’t see the point of the first. Why not just move in as a friend and leave it as that? Why even call it polygamy or marriage?
“The negative for the friend is that she gets a platonic friendship with someone else’s husband rather than a mutually satisfying/sexual relationship with a committed partner. Frankly, I don’t see the point of the first. Why not just move in as a friend and leave it as that? Why even call it polygamy or marriage?”
First of all, that would be up to the person to decide. Who are you to decide what is in her best interests? Second of all, marriage is above all else a lifelong commitment between people who love each other. I have news for you guys. Lesbians have sexless marriages all the time. They get married having no intention of having sexual relations with each other moving forward. Why do they get married? Oh I don’t know, maybe because they love each other? Maybe they want to adopt a child together. I’d think not marrying this woman would be much worse. Talk about chaos in your children’s lives. “Hey kids, another woman is moving in with us and will be involved in our day-to-day lives. What is that? How long will she live with us? Nobody knows sweetie. She’ll be an integral part of your life until she gets bored. I know, commitment is silly.”
Maybe a romantic connection could develop down the road between the husband and the 2nd wife. “I knew it! This is all about the husband wanting to get his rocks off! This has been a secret ploy all along!”
(throws hands up in frustration)
Thanks everyone. The discussion is played out. Per author request, I am closing comments.