A non-Mormon man wondered if he might be able to participate in polygamy. Helen Mar Kimball wrote a scathing response to this man while offering a strong defense of polygamy. Dr. Larry Foster discusses this interesting defense of polygamy.
Larry: There was a very interesting defense of polygamy by one of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, Helen Marr Kimball, who then became married to Whitney– Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, later, but I forget which Whitney she was married to, but she was briefly a plural wife of Joseph Smith. She wrote a defense of why we practice plural marriage. She starts with a very interesting story about a man who had written her. He described a very complicated situation in which he was unable to have sex with his wife. He loved her. He was taking care of her, but it was impossible to have sex with his wife, and he wondered if he were to become a Mormon, if it’d be acceptable for him to have another wife. She wrote back to him, chastising him and saying, “This is terrible. You’re awful.” I guess he was living in this type of relationship and he wanted to see if it could be regularized as a Mormon. And she said, “This is terrible, your great sin,” and so forth. But if it had been under the authority of the Mormon Church, it would have been okay. This is very interesting to me. She was a very thoughtful writer. She appreciated the problem that he was in, but she really gave him an earful about how he really needed to repent.
GT: It wasn’t under proper authority.
Larry: It wasn’t under proper authority, and I don’t think she ever got to the question of what would happen if he joined and tried to do it?
We will also discuss Brian Hales‘ three-volume work on polygamy (Vol 1, Vol 2, Vol 3).
Larry: Brian Hales, he’s done great work by giving us a 3-volume, 1600-page collection with accurate transcripts of virtually all the stuff that relates to polygamy, pro, anti, but he interprets it wrong, ahistorically. I think his major goal is to actually argue that none of these women that were sealed to Joseph Smith, who were married to other men actually had sex with him in this life, that they were only sealed for eternity and did not have sex with him in this life. I think this has been almost definitively disproven by Michael Quinn. Michael Quinn is one of the most knowledgeable and most reliable, I think, historians of all aspects of Mormonism, especially 19th century Mormonism. He’s done a lot on the 20th century as well.
GT: Let me jump in there, because, and I’ll be a Brian Hales defender for just a moment, because I do know that he’s done at least two DNA studies with Dr. Ugo Perego.
Larry: Right, but this is about possible children by some of these women.
GT: But I know that Sylvia Sessions Lyon was one case, and he’s since changed his opinion since he wrote those books, but he was arguing with Sylvia Sessions that she was married to Brother Lyon, I can’t remember his first name–it was consecutive marriages.
Larry: It doesn’t hold up. If you look at the detail, and that’s what Michael Quinn has done, but here’s the thing about that particular case. In that particular case, she’s told her daughter.
GT: Josephine Lyon.
Larry: Josephine Lyon, just before she died, she said, “I wanted you to know this, I have kept this from you all these years, but you’re really Joseph Smith’s progeny.”
GT: Yeah.
Larry: Well, then we did the DNA testing and it showed that she wasn’t.
GT: Right, she was a daughter of Brother Lyon.
Larry: Listen to this. What does the fact that she told her daughter that she was Joseph Smith’s progeny mean? She then knew that she had had sex with Joseph Smith, even if that particular example of the sex didn’t produce progeny from him. It was exceedingly controversial to have children in Nauvoo from 1841 to 1844 as a polygamist. It was illegal. It would have been totally disapproved up by most Mormons who were taught to have to be strictly monogamous and thought that was heinously sinful to have more than one marital partner, or relationship of any sort, outside of marriage. So, any children that would have been born, would have been covered up. I know we have some examples of how that happened.
Joseph Smith said his name would be known for good and evil. Boy was he right. Dr. Larry Foster thinks the truth is somewhere in the middle and dismisses both strong critics and strong apologists who don’t recognize the complexities of Joseph.
Larry: It seems clear to me after more than 40 years of studying Joseph Smith, among a number of other things, that one has to separate behavior of a prophet from the teachings of the Prophet. Brigham Young himself said, he didn’t care if Joseph Smith did all sorts of terrible things, but he was still a prophet of God. That’s what was important to him. That was in the Journal of Discourses, by the way, I’m not quoting him [directly], but I’m just giving the general gist of it.
Prophets often are a little bit excessive in various ways, including sexually. But I’d say it should not necessarily be viewed as discrediting their larger teachings. Let’s take a case that is not religious. Isaac Newton was a really weird character, really, really weird character. He was also absolutely brilliant. He developed all sorts of ideas about celestial mechanics and how the world works. He was a man who is unparalleled genius. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the validity or lack of validity of his [ideas about] celestial mechanics. I think that we would be well not to assume that one possible defect of a prophetic leader, if that’s what it was, a defect, necessarily discounts the positive accomplishments that they’ve made. Right now, we’ve just had a devastating blockbuster set of revelations on Martin Luther King Jr.’s, much wider than we had expected sexual life, and it’s really painful for many of us, who highly regarded him, but he still was a great man. He did some very important things, even if he had feet of clay in one area. I think [that if] Latter-day Saints are serious about understanding Joseph Smith, [they] need to be aware that there is this problem with his behavior toward the end of his life. Some of it is organized, and some of it can be explained. But it’s very hard, ultimately. In Section 132, he reports something to the effect that God forgives him for any sins he might have committed or might commit in the future. That’s a pretty broad thing.
One of the things I find really interesting about Dr. Larry Foster is that he seems to disagree with both critics and supporters of Joseph Smith. In our final conversation with Larry, we will close up some loose ends and seek to find a middle ground that best explain Joseph Smith.
Larry: I think it’s really hard for people who have the sort of complete hero worship idea, or sort of a pasteboard saint, to really understand Joseph Smith. It’s really hard for people who think he was just a total scoundrel and crook and con man and confidence man, or whatever it was, to see him properly. I think that there’s an element of both in him. So, my latest piece on trying to reconcile the fact that so many people for so many years, have either thought that he was a true prophet of God that could do no evil, or he was a terrible scoundrel and con man.
I think that the fact that so many people have had those opposing viewpoints [means that neither can be the whole truth.] I always believe that most people are trying to do the right thing or be honest, unless I see otherwise. So, I think there’s something that’s very special about Joseph Smith. There’s also some stuff about him that looks like he’s manipulative, and so forth. So, I argue that he was genuinely committed to his religious beliefs and ideals, but that he was also willing to cut corners and even lie or make false statements in order to try to accomplish his goals.
GT: Now, I just spoke with Dan Vogel recently.
Larry: Yeah, we’re very much on the same page on this.
GT: So, you would go with pious fraud?
Larry: No, I don’t use that. [I call him] a sincere charlatan. That was the term that I developed. I think pious and fraud both are [problematic.] Pious sounds like you’re not really true, and fraud is fraud. I mean, charlatan, trickster would be better, maybe than charlatan. But I think that he really had a genuine religious vision and ideals. I also think that he was willing to manipulate other people as part of that in ways that from outsiders’ perspective look like he was a fraud. If you don’t bring the two together, you can’t understand the overall dynamic. He was a great man. He was also a flawed man. And he, of course, recognized that the prophet is a prophet only when it’s acting as such. But even though he was acting as such, sometimes he may have deviated.
Questions for you:
- What are your thoughts concerning Joseph Smith?
- What are your thoughts regarding polygamy?
- Do you agree that critics and apologists don’t have a correct view of Joseph Smith?
Wheat & Tares 
Couldn’t Josephine Lyon have just lied to her daughter? Or maybe Sylvia Sessions Lyon was lying about what her mom said. I don’t think the truth can ever be ascertained from things people say.
Interesting dialogue and interaction. For me, I’ve reached a stage in life that “if you’re going to proclaim that you’re the mouthpiece of God….and that you’re here to establish Zion on earth…you darn well better be able to conduct yourself better than Joseph Smith did.
Under no circumstances do I believe that Polygamy (or Polyandry for that matter) are doctrines from God. I think both practices were (and are) an abomination and perversion; and I cannot think of any “loving God” who would ask “one of his children” to participate in such a thing. It should be condemned at every quarter; both here in this life….and in the supposed life to come.
I think it is pretty disgusting for “the Church” to publicly declare that “we no longer practice polygamy…and then Nelson and Oaks stand at the pulpit fully aware that they are each sealed to two women. So, clearly we “practice” polygamy into the eternities. Thanks much for the post Rick B.
Lefthandloafer, On the other hand, we have no evidence that the first Mrs. Oaks or the first Mrs. Nelson consented to the arrangement. Our practices and teachings with respect to the efficacy of sealings for the dead also seem to be significantly counter to the Section 132 description of the sealing power/authority. Put those things together and I must wonder what the heck the sealings to the second Mrs. for each mean. I suppose I’ll likely give up trying to make sense of it and think of sealing rituals as representing being sealed to the family of God and let the hereafter take care of itself.
The Church has previously dropped things out of the D&C. I’d be happier if it simply dropped all of Section 132 out. That would not require changing sealing ordinances, but it would for some get rid of some of JS’ overblown conception of his own power, authority, and rightness which he seems to have confused with God’s. Of course he’s far from the only one to confuse his desires and opinions with God’s. Some of us seem to be more prone to that than others. Maybe that’s correlated with a willingness to live with ambiguity and uncertainty. I dunno.
Hmmmm… nicely said, Wondering. Thank you.
The BY quote mentioned in the OP is as follows:
I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against “Joe Smith,” saying, “that he was a mean man, a liar, money-digger, gambler, and a whore-master;” and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor’s wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. He said, “I have done.” JD 4:77-78
Polygamy: The Way of the Tribe
Polygamy is offensive to the delicate, coddled life of Western modernity. But to the tribes of the earth, whose consciousness abides closer to Eden, polygamy is honorable. A conquering Chief is honorable—more honorable than the weak men of the Western world, whose power and authority is derived from robes of justice and weapons of war. The Chief is honored by his children, his tribe, not by his personal consumption. The Chief is a true sovereign. No Western man is sovereign—his “westernness” makes him dependent upon institutions for comfort, sustenance, value and meaning—without which he is nothing.
We need to stop feeling ashamed about polygamy. Our task is to gather the tribes of Israel. The western world has a history of hunting down, displacing, and persecuting tribal peoples: the Roma of Europe, the Kurds of the Middle East, all Polynesians, and the indigenous peoples of the American continent—and in the name of God: it’s an abomination! How can we gather the tribes if we don’t live like them and understand them? The Western world profanes the Creation and at the same time claims priesthood—what a lie!
A Chief is sovereign. He is Chief because of his knowledge, skills, talents, and so forth. His Chiefness over other men is self-evident. Women are attracted to his Chiefness, and seek bring his talents out in their children. Joseph Smith was a Chief. His Chiefness was self-evident among his peers. Imagine the envy!
Consider the hearts of men in The Genesis: fallen angel-priests corrupted the earth with offspring of consumptive “giants,” who devoured and destroyed everything. Against this backdrop, we understand the significance of procreation—children are the prize and benefactor; marriage and polygamy are ordained to coordinate the special task of bringing spirits into the material world. Sexual union derived from “love” and appetite are an abomination when they produce wicked offspring. Wicked offspring—even in the secular world, arrive from broken homes, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse (evident by statistics of prisoners incarcerated).
As long as marriage and polygamy are understood as having origin with personal love—really, an extension of appetite—people will be offended by polygamy; it cannot be understood in an individualist, narcissist, Western conception of economy. Polygamy can, however, be understood inside the context of tribe, and in the commandment to look after widows and fatherless; when woman chooses a father-for-children, rather than a husband-for-love, we get a glimpse of what’s really going on.
I can’t tell if Travis’s response is satire. Assuming that God is a loving, benevolent Father in Heaven then I think any system that treats whole groups of people as second class (or worse) is incorrect.
Polygamy is indefensible to me and I no longer try to explain it other than early church leaders wanted to get away with sexual relationships with many women. It seems the most logical explanation.
Knowledge of the genetic history of our species is essential to understanding Mormon behavior, in particular dominant male, polygamy and group dynamics, behavior, that is characteristic of Hominidae.
Polygamy has been the norm throughout the history of Homo sapiens sapiens. Our Mormon forebears utilized an ancient, not to mention effective, method of best male gene transmission: https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-2223-5-13 (featured in Washington Post September 25, 2014 at 10:57 a.m. CDT. Furthermore: “In the genetic history of our species, the mamas outnumber the papas. A new study in Investigative Genetics reports that females have made a bigger contribution than men. By studying the DNA of 623 males from 51 populations, the researchers found more genetic diversity in the DNA inherited from mothers than they did in the DNA inherited from fathers.”
Leaders, in particular, need a much deeper understanding of genetics and prenatal development than they currently have, especially regarding issues like homosexuality.
Satire or not, I think Travis’ comment echoes some real aspects of early Mormon thinking.
I would be inclined to Toad’s view except that it seems too simple — and seriously incomplete in the context of 19th century Mormon worldviews. In that regard Sam Brown’s analysis in “In Heaven as it is on Earth,” OUP, is quite valuable. But as to trying to explain it, I don’t.
Travis, I just….wow. I guess I hope you find a good breeding partner—or partners—someday (assuming you haven’t already, of course). You seem to have it all figured out (I feel sorry for them, though).
Response to Toad:
Polygamy (in a form) exists in secular society among rich, powerful, and famous men: entrepreneurs, statesmen, athletes and actors have their private harems, which only come to light during scandal. There are many, many women today who accept infidelity for security and wealth. In today’s context, what about a woman’s choice?
Hypothetically, if polygamy was legal today, our only real contention rests with woman’s choice—if a woman is currently okay with being “one of the girlfriends,” she might also be okay with being “one of the wives.”
The real problem I see with polygamy is underage marriage.
What the crap, Travis? I can’t tell if you are serious or facetious. If the former, I hope you aren’t teaching such garbage in church settings. If the latter, please make liberal use of smileys next time.
Anonymous, I suppose it is possible that Sylvia Sessions Lyon lied to Josephine, but I don’t think that is the best explanation. I seem to recall that Brian Hales says that Sylvia told the same to Josephine’s sister who clearly was not physical offspring of Joseph. Hales speculated that Sylvia must have meant the 2 girls were spiritual, rather than physical offspring of Joseph. That seems like a better explanation than that Sylvia lied to them.
As for the tribal explanation, it seems to me w&t once had a Mormon anarchist who used to comment here (Justin?) Who advocated for similar thinking. I often don’t recognize satire but the logic seems similar and while I am not a proponent of polygamy or anarchy, Justin was the best spokesman for anarchy I’ve met. That said, I think both anarchy and polygamy are bad news.
Polygamy = multiple spouses
Polygyny = multiple wives
Polyandry = multiple husbands
What are we discussing here?
Were discussing All of the above: Polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry.
Usually polygamy means polygyny, but in the case of Silvia Sessions Lyon, we’re talking polyandry.
Somebody should tell Travis.
Lots of attacks, was hoping for discussion…
In Polynesia, people who descended from Chiefs are honored by polygamy—it’s a noble heritage for them. No Protestant or Catholic ethic will change it. It’s ethnocentric and arrogant to force feed tribal people “our way” as the right way.
To secular society, Joseph Smith played the fool, but to tribal society the Jungian archetype fool-trickster communes with the gods (prophetic). Read about Maui and Kamapua’a for reference.
So tribal peoples might see the controversy of Joseph Smith with a different lens, and polygamy for them is indicative of great honor, a sign of being blessed by the gods…
Response to P,
You haven’t contributed anything yet. Just insults. Explain please, what about polygamy lends itself to “a second class?”
I hear a bunch of colonialists and capitalists dictating an empty morality; explain to me the ethic that persecuted polygamy, or the ethos that generates such ethic. I understand that you “feel” one way, but you haven’t supported your comments… indulge me
Travis, watch some episodes of “Escaping Polygamy” and that should be enough to show you just how coercive and manipulative of a social system it is.
Travis, p here – where did I use phrase “a second class”? I am generally supportive of your argument for reasons I stated in my original post.
“It’s ethnocentric and arrogant to force feed tribal people “our way” as the right way.”
Wait, are you saying this as a believing Mormon? Doesn’t the LDS church try to persuade people every day to reject many of their religious and cultural traditions and accept those of the church?
Second, what of human rights? You wrote that you reject underage marriage. That is a fairly predominant custom in sub-Saharan Africa. What of female genital mutilation, human sacrifice, and other clear violations of basic human rights? You seem concerned only with the ability some Polynesian village elders to maintain the custom of polygamy and think nothing of the rights of the women.
Huh? And here I was thinking one of the core teachings of Jesus was to overcome tribalism.
Response to John W:
Thank you for discussion. The vitriol here is fascinating. Totally unexpected.
While I do not base my opinions on television shows, I don’t think those renegade polygamists that you mentioned are justified by the way they practice. Women seem to be subordinated physically, emotionally, and spiritually. That is one way to practice polygamy. At the same time, I do not condone violence and drug abuse in marriage either—but some people practice it that way.
The polygamy practiced in tribal society is more nuanced.
I do not think the Restored Gospel attempts to persuade people to reject their traditions, customs, beliefs—unless it impedes the work of atonement. Polynesians practice their traditions, customs, and beliefs alongside the institution of the church without trouble. By far they are the most spiritual, loving, Christ-like people in the church today.
On human rights and underage marriage—I look at this as a separate issue. Underage marriage in secular society is dodgy; underage marriage in the tribal society is different. This is a problem within and without polygamy, so it’s a topic for another thread.
It is understandable that folks get upset about polygamy—Utah Mormons are super-sensitive about it—but have you really tried to dive into (1) what exactly brings about those flooding feelings that cloud your intellect, and (2) what possible explanations help resolve your feelings.
My mind was softened to the controversy of polygamy (it was once hard for me to understand) when I learned how Polynesians looked upon it—as something noble and honorable. But the Polynesians also practiced polyandry, so high Chiefess-women could marry multiple husbands, so there existed an equitable balance among men and women.
If multiple husbands or multiple wives was legally permitted—polygamy and polyandry—would there still be hard feelings?
What are your thoughts?
Travis, I would estimate that the people approving polygamy on this blog is less than 5%. Anyone espousing the merits of the practice is bound to get pushback. I’d rather we talked about Dr. Foster’s perspectives on polygamy, rather than debate the merits (or lack thereof) of polygamy in general. I wasn’t intending to debate the merits of polygamy, but rather discuss a non-Mormon perspective of polygamy and Joseph Smith. I view your promotion of polygamy as off-topic.
Having said that, if you would like to create a guest post discussing the merits of polygamy, send me an email to gospel tangents at gmail dot com and I’ll take it up with the other permas here as to whether we want to have a guest post on the topic. To be honest, a few years ago we used to debate this topic rather frequently, but I thought it was beaten to death. You can check the archives. Surely it is a controversial topic that ALWAYS brings a lot of heat, so I’m surprised that you’re surprised. First time here?
Rick B, my apologies, appreciate your work, it wasn’t my intention to “promote polygamy,” but to introduce the tribal lens—one which hasn’t been much discussed in light of “gathering tribes of Israel.” The non-Mormon perspective you address I thought fit the tribal take, I didn’t realize you meant non-Mormon Secular perspective—it wasn’t clear, my bad. In the preamble of the comment section you introduced three questions—I addressed those questions. Please be more clear about the type of responses and comments you want so we can follow suit and say all the right things without abuse. Aloha!
Travis, do you consider yourself an anarchist? I know Justin was an anarchist and spoke frequently about a tribal lens, although he has not commented for quite some time.
I think I speak for many here that the tribal lens is a bad lens. Our politics are tribal, and I am not happy about it. We need less tribalism and more cooperation. I know we talk about the 12 tribes of Israel, but frankly that polygamist family was the definition of dysfunctional. There was jealousy among wives, and children of those wives. They tried to kill Joseph, then sold him into slavery. This is not godly. No thank you. Justin frequently spoke of Somalia as an example of tribalism as a good thing. Once again, no thank you. I have no desire to return to the tribalism that you seem to laud. As a society, we are generally getting better by moving away from tribalism. I view a return to tribalism as de-evolution of society and that’s not a good thing.
Just so you know where I’m coming from, I think many stories of the Old Testament are barbaric and far from godly, and I have no desire to uphold many of those stories (such as Abraham trying to kill Isaac). This is tribalism at its most ungodly. Maybe I’ll have to do some segments on the Old Testament.
Travis, please don’t interpret what I write as vitriol. I simply think you need to rethink your views.
I reread the OP. On that last question, I agree with Larry Foster. Joseph Smith is a complex, unique figure. Critics often fail to recognize that and readily dismiss Joseph Smith as this guy who was in it for the money and sex. And apologists seem too concerned about saying anything that would get them on the bad side of the church. I voted Vogel as having the best history. Bushman is good, but you can clearly tell in his work that there is a line he is unwilling to cross, even while the evidence he presents suggests that he should be crossing that line. Vogel says anything he wants, and to his credit he tries to be as fair as possible.
Rick B, thank you for your view on the tribal lens. Your YouTube show is awesome. I didn’t know that most everyone here thinks the same. I just don’t think we can come to properly understand or talk about polygamy outside it’s original, primary context—that being tribal. Science would start there.
On the anarchist question:
No. I don’t have a political affiliation, never was into following teams, clubs, or groups—not into mob prejudice.
I don’t pledge allegiance to the “flag,” but instead insert “Constitution,” because it makes more sense to me.
John W, If I am writing about a tribal lens, and I have not identified myself as a tribal person—no affiliation, then I imagine it fair to assume that there might be some morsel to chew on, consider, and spit it out if you don’t like it. Taste, smell the wine, you don’t have to swallow it to know it. Criticize and discern the wine, not the sommelier who pours it.
That said, for me, Fawn M. Brodie gives the most believable biographical account of the prophet Joseph Smith. Like her biography of Richard Burton, she weaves human contradiction into an enigmatic figure. You love to hate him and hate loving him at the same time.
What if Joseph Smith was commanded, “Joseph, go nuts, do as much crazy stuff as you can so that your legend transcends time… shock the world so you’ll be written about for the next few centuries.”
Sorry, stuck on the tribalism part, because I am seriously trying to wrap my head around any understanding of polygamy as ok AT ALL. (I feel like this is pretty common amongst women…) So…
Wouldn’t “gathering the ten tribes” put an end to tribalism? Doesn’t gathering denote coming together as one? It seems to me the actual goal is unity, and so the tribal lens is flawed to begin with?
Thanks Rick for another excellent interview. I was quite impressed that a non-member scholar would have so much detailed interest in our past generally, and more specifically in Joseph’s polygynous and polyandrous doctrine and practice. I was glad you were able to offer him a venue to share his perspectives with us.
Just a quick observation in a related area:
In terms of section 132 that was mentioned earlier in a post, I did a word analysis some time ago, (using the Gospel Library), of the full section when compared to the Doctrine and Covenants as a whole. Keeping in mind that the D&C encompasses 295 pages while section 132 takes up only 7 pages (approx. 2.4%), here are just some basic observations of how dark the section can come across to the reader . . .
The word “trespass” shows up 3 times out of the 17 times mentioned in all of the D&C (#2 highest frequency of all the sections). So, for the sake of brevity, I would summarize it this way: “trespass” 3/17, #2
Here are some more of fairly depressing terms I investigated from section 132:
“sin” 7/49, #3
“destroy” 11/50, #2
“adultery” 10/20, #1
“damn” 3/11, #1
“murder” 4/12, #1
Ironic that the one section in our canon that is supposed to celebrate the joys of eternal marriage, is also laden with a boat load of dark verses and male-centric verses at that (especially the unfortunate verses regarding Emma).
Is it any wonder Elder James E. Talmage did not include it for the short-lived 1930 “Latter-day Revelation: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants” that was meant to be a missionary-friendly reader’s digest version of the canon for new members and investigators. (There is an amazing back story to how it that text met an early demise.)
Sorry to deviate from the focus, but as for me, polygamy was simply a social experiment gone awry. I don’t really see much of heaven’s influence in it. It truly is the elephant in our proverbial doctrinal tent.
If you read the scriptures about the families that lived in polygyny none of them make for happy, uplifting reading. Fathers play favorites with both children and wives. Some wives are deprived of the emotional and/or financial support that they deserve. Brothers and sisters fight among themselves and try to one up each other in the eyes of their father. Wives fight among themselves. None of this passes the “By their fruits you shall know them” test that Jesus gave us. Ditto for the polygyny and polyandry that Joseph introduced and Brigham made a commandment. I have ancestors who practiced polygyny on both sides of my family. The horror stories of deceit, unrighteous dominion, spousal and child child abuse of the worst kind, playing favorites with one family while the other family starves, (while both men served as revered ward Priesthood leaders) left four generations of people wounded and engaging in undesirable to downright sick behaviors learned as a result of this debased idea of marriage. It took my generation to tell these family secrets out loud (much to the horror of our parents!) and then to covenant as a group to do whatever it took to stop the toxic behaviors and ideas that sprang up in our family as a result of “The Principle”. I’m happy to say that my sibs, cousins and I have been successful in this regard. We’ve all felt the Spirit confirm that Heavenly Father has been pleased with our efforts. No, polygyny was not and never has been a righteous, God approved practice. The fruits of plural marriage are always toxic.
“If I had been talked to about plurality of wives when I was baptized into the Church, the Lord may know, but I do not know what I would have done. I had to go wandering over the world preaching the Gospel years after, had to work longer than Jacob did for a wife to get myself in that state of mind that the Lord dare name the doctrine to me. We were not aware that any such a thing as plural marriage had to be introduced into the world; but the Lord said it after a while, and we obeyed the best we knew how, and, no doubt, made many crooked paths in our ignorance.”
Remarks by Elder Amasa M. Lyman, delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 5, 1866. Reported by G. D. Watt. Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, pp. 206-207
“we made… crooked paths” may be the most convincing part of Elder Lyman’s speech on [plural] marriage. It would be interesting to know just what “crooked paths” he had in mind.
““According to one account, six of Lyman’s seven living plural wives left him after he abandoned Mormonism, though some were probably disillusioned less by his religious views than by his personal habits and his failure to support them.”
“Wayward Saints: The Godbeites and Brigham Young”, Ronald Warren Walker, University of Illinois Press, 1998
Wondering – you mentioned Dallin Oaks’ first wife not consenting to his remarriage. There’s an LDS Living article about his search for a replacement companion here.
http://www.ldsliving.com/How-President-Oaks-s-Daughters-Helped-Him-Find-His-Wife-Kristen-The-Sweet-Way-He-Knew-It-was-Meant-to-Be/s/88320
How interesting that he wasn’t willing or able to live the rest of his life single and celibate, yet has no problem expecting LGBTQ members to do so. It’s also evident that he fully expects to enjoy the “blessings” of polygamy in heaven, and chose a woman who understood the implications of being the second wife. From the article…”It was also important to both of us that Kristen felt comfortable about becoming a ‘second wife.’ She understood the eternal doctrine of relationships. She was becoming part of an existing eternal family unit, and she has always been eager to honor and include June. ” The other thing that stuck out to me was his mention that his sons were totally fine with him remarrying. This speaks to the conditioning that men in the church get that it’s fine to ‘get all the wives you want’ according to Joseph when he encouraged William Clayton to see additional wives.
This makes my skin crawl.
Pete. You found an article I had missed. Thanks.
In addition to what you point out, the article notes that before June died she encouraged their daughters to encourage DHO to remarry. (He had not been wiling to discuss the possibility with her) I think June would have known that would or could mean being sealed to a second wife. The article also notes that each of his daughters came to him individually indicating it was time to remarry. and only after they did so did he begin to look for another mate.
So it was not just a Mormon guy thing that for his sons it was “not a problem” for him to remarry. So the article speaks rather evenly to the “conditioning” men and women get in the church about polygamy. I guess the conditioning “takes” for some and not others. It was not just DHO who expected to have both wives in the eternities. As I read the article, it indicates that June and their daughters also expected and welcomed that.
There is nothing in the article about DHO not being willing or able to live the rest of his life single and celibate.
Wondering…I was reading this part ‘”but she frequently told our four daughters that she knew I would need to remarry” as he wasn’t willing or able to remain single. Other GAs have lost spouses and not remarried. I probably read too much into his wife’s instructions to the daughters.
Good point about the daughters and wives being conditioned as well. DHO has made comments in other places that say, in essence, we don’t really know what the afterlife will be like but he fully intends on and expects to have both wives. Talking out of both sides of his mouth at once.
What I find difficult and, increasingly, just downright offensive, is the failure to acknowledge that the cost of separating the “behavior of a prophet from the teachings of the Prophet,” or of thinking that prophets can be “a little bit excessive in various ways, including sexually,” but it shouldn’t discredit “their larger teachings,” is borne disproportionately by women. Quoting the execrable Section 132 to show that God will forgive Joseph Smith for those little problems with his behavior just proves my point. I get that people are complicated, but there is nothing positive about his legacy of polygamy (which I would argue IS one of his larger teachings), not least because it gives people cover to rhapsodize about chiefs (or church leaders) collecting wives who gratefully produce children (or at least provide sex) for them. Women are still just a little footnote (admittedly sometimes a mildly interesting one) in the Annals of History, and while it sure is disappointing when men are mean to them, let’s not derail the discussion of Important Stuff.
Does anyone know how many GA wives, if any, remarry if their GA husbands die first? With the large age gap between Russel and Wendy Nelson, I wonder if she would remarry after his death and what the implications of that would be.
I think many of the plural wives that supported polygamy probably had Stockholm syndrome. Reading their journals, it is clear they were emotionally traumatized by this, even while testifying it was from God.