The church’s new polygamy essays are progressive and more transparent than prior statements on this topic. For example, a few short years ago when I was teaching Relief Society, the manual regarding the teachings of Joseph Smith specifically forbade teachers from discussing polygamy. There was also an entire lesson devoted to the “love letters” of Joseph to Emma, a dubious endeavor given their troubled relationship. I could not in good conscience teach that lesson, a lesson that not only was light on gospel substance (devoid, in fact), but also deliberately misleading about the nature of the troubled relationship between Joseph and Emma, implying that the couple was some great example of marital love and trust to which we should all aspire. [1]
While I’ve been aware of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages for a long time, because the church has been so hush-hush about it, the matter was still open to see what the church’s stance would be when it finally spoke on the historical facts. We hadn’t heard the church’s closing arguments, so to speak. Now that they have spoken, it feels a little like we went from denial and side-stepping to admission coupled with justification. What’s missing is real empathy for the harmful effects of this practice that hurt women far more than men. We get a very brief nod to this, including stating how difficult it was for the men! I mean, I’m glad if they felt it was awful. It was. But it was far worse for women.
The essay seems as though it was written absent any female input or any interest in how women perceive this difficult subject. As someone who has sat in Relief Society for two and a half decades, I can state with some authority that the sisters are not okay with polygamy, either here or in the eternities. The most positive views of it are: 1) shelving it for now by imagining that we’ll feel differently at some undetermined point in the future, or 2) complete denial and unwillingness to look at what really happened; this includes seeing what the FLDS do as completely different from what early Saints did. That’s the best we’ve got. And that’s the most charitable subset of the women, of which I am not one. [2]
While I applaud the increase in transparency, I felt a little bit like I did watching the OJ Simpson trial.
JURY: OJ is so cool. I wonder if he will sign an autograph for me?
PROSECUTION: It’s a million to one chance that he did it. The DNA proves it.
COCHRAN: If the glove does not fit, you must acquit.
JURY: Pithy phrases are so much easier to understand than science or DNA. There’s still room for reasonable doubt.
PROSECUTION: No, there really isn’t. Weren’t any of you listening to the expert testimony?
JURY: Not guilty!
AMERICA: ????
Those of us outside the jury were pretty much convinced of his guilt the whole time, and when he got off, everyone was in shock. Only the gullible and unsophisticated jury was convinced he would never do such a thing. And of course, after he got off, he wrote the book If I Did It, detailing the grisly murder in a hypothetical account. This essay felt like the church went from “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit” to “If I Did It,” in one fell swoop; like that book, the approach is defensive of something that most would find reprehensible. Obviously, plural marriage isn’t on par with homicide, but it was a pretty unsavory business, involving coercion of minors and spousal deception, as well as refuting truthful accusations. By some accounts, it included more egregious actions than that, actions the church has not conceded in this essay.
Patrick Mason, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University had this to say about the new approach:
“It’s a win for transparency and honesty. It’s a win for the relationship between the church and scholarship. I think it’s a win just for historical honesty and accuracy and the confidence that we can deal with tough issues inside the church.”
The only ones who don’t win are (once again) the women. How are we dealing with the “tough issues” when we don’t care how the ones who bear the larger burden are impacted? There’s no mention of the mortification these women experienced as they sat in the first Relief Society, knowingly deceiving Emma, their president, hiding the fact that they were married to her husband, to say nothing of Emma’s betrayal and heartbreak. The essays fail to truly acknowledge how plural marriage harms women, very disproportionately to men. I suspect this is for three reasons: 1) no women were involved in writing or reviewing the essays (although if there were, they would probably find the one woman it doesn’t make vomit), 2) many church leaders descend from polygamists and are loath to criticize the marriages of their great grandparents, and 3) some church leaders believe and hope that plural marriage is their right in the eternities.
On the upside, I am hopeful that nobody will again ask us to teach a lesson about the exemplary, harmonious marriage that Emma & Joseph didn’t really have.
Discuss.
[1] OTOH, mormon.org is still touting this version of Joseph. To wit, “The heavy burden of leading the Church did not distract Joseph from his responsibility to his wife and children; it increased his love for them. One of the later Prophets of the Church told the members, “No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” This statement came more than a century after Joseph Smith died, but Joseph exemplified this idea all his life. Even though Joseph was often persecuted and sometimes imprisoned on false charges, his first thoughts were always for his family. He wrote to his wife, Emma, while he was imprisoned in Missouri: “Tell the children that I am alive and trust that I shall come and see them before long. Comfort their hearts all you can, and try to be comforted yourself all you can.” Joseph lived the doctrine he preached—that strengthening our families should be an important focus of our lives. When his life was in jeopardy, Joseph relied on his faith in Jesus Christ not only to sustain himself, but his wife and children as well.” Given Joseph’s at times secretive polygamy, this hagiography goes beyond wishful thinking.
[2] The most charitable defense of polygamy I ever heard was by my seminary teacher when I was a teen. She said it would be better to be a second wife in a good marriage than a first wife in a bad marriage. I never understood what she meant by a “good” marriage in which the husband was also sleeping with other women. Perhaps she meant it was better than physical domestic abuse. If so, that’s a low bar.
Wheat & Tares 
We’ve gone in “a few short years” from barely admitting we ever did it, to acknowledging not only the practice but some of its more objectionable (to modern sensibilities) manifestations, such as underage wives and women who were already married.
Those essays can’t be everything to everyone, but they do what they were probably intended to do – represent the most comprehensive modern attempt by the Church to own up to its polygamous past – quite well. I, for one, am grateful they’ve gone this far; it surpasses my expectations. I’m pleasantly surprised.
I remain hopeful that we haven’t seen the end of it, but I suspect we’ll see more of the things Hawk wants to see here from good historians, not the Church’s PR machine.
I have been a member of the church my whole life. I am very active and have served in several presidencies. I did not know Joseph was a polygamist until a couple of years ago when I read a book about Emma. (I was 38 or 39 years old! )
My first thought upon reading the essays was the lack of acknowledgement of the women’s emotional suffering and asks how it affected them. I’m unsure why the church would not know the exact number of women that were sealed to him. Did they not keep records of temple work back then?
I have to say that I am grateful for the strength of my testimony that Joseph Smith really saw God the father and Jesus Christ and restored the gospel because polygamy makes my stomach turn.
Just in time for Halloween family fun! Now that the cat’s out of the bag let’s all take our families to the Trunk or Treat dressed as Joseph and some of his wives and their assorted other husbands.
I think the strong focus on how plural marriage harms women while it was certainly historically true in the short run is a short sighted view. Living polygamy illegally obviously invites abuse of many kinds but I believe living polygamy (meaning both polygyny and polyandry) legally under a divinely guided theocracy has the potential to refine a people over several generations to become far more more selfless, far less possessive and far less jealous. This refinement would make a people far more Christ-like wouldn’t it? I believe plural marriage (start up difficulties and early abuses aside) was divinity introduced for that long-term purpose. The current tradition of one man, one woman is specifically designed to NOT trigger jealousy and subtly suggests, allows or approves a possessive view of our spouses “my” wife, “my” husband “my” better half etc and contributes to the Mosaic and Pharisaical nature of the church because of the immature (compared to Christ) nature of it’s members. On the other hand polygamy triggers feelings of jealousy and possessiveness allowing them to be worked through in the way that praying for patience seems to manifest a particularly trying person in our life to learn to deal with. Many reading this may look at jealousy, possessiveness and even selfishness as “normal” and indeed statistically they are, but at the same time they are dysfunctional and immature and they can be transcended. So plural marriage under divine leadership can be a multigenerational method of putting off the natural man and refining a people to be more Christ-like.
The current marriage system has other short comings due to it’s scarcity driven competition, he typically wants the *best* wife he can attract and she the *best* husband and since they are limited to just one eligible partners tend to be ranked by comparison unfortunately too often based on somewhat superficial traits and like musical chairs some “sweet spirits” seems to find themselves left out of the game. When the number of partners is (practically) unlimited competition is relaxed and people are free to engage one another based of a broader variety of traits and attractions. In addition we learn different things about ourselves by being in relationships with different people and this accrues to our personal growth.
First I was grateful to the step forward, but I’m having delayed reactions and it’s extremely triggering for me right now as a mofem. Law of Sarah my ***. I’ve got some more wrestling to do with this and I’m not sure if my bigger problem lies with historical facts or the way my current leadership presented said facts.
You seem to have missed the parts that do discuss the effects on women. There’s the testimony of Lucy Walker in the Kirtland and Nauvoo piece, the mentions of how women felt they had no companionship of their husbands and those who spoke defending polygamy in the Early Utah piece, and women who had to hide pregnancies for fear of being subpoenaed to testify against their husbands in the Post-Manifesto piece. You’ve also ignored the many sources cited by women.
Then there’s this from the Early Utah piece:
MM(2): No, they didn’t keep the best records of Temple work back then. There was actually a rebuke because of their poor record keeping.
That’s the trouble with trying to glean history from a time seemingly recent as 180 years ago; not everything was documented as well as we’d like, so we use our imaginations (or gut feelings, or the spirit) to fill in the gaps, making a narrative we “feel” is correct. It tends to show much more of our own biases that was ever documented in the surviving record.
It just seems like you think there’s no possible way polygamy is good for anyone, especially not women, so these pieces must completely ignore how it effected women.
MM, many of the sealings took place outside the temple. For example, there was no temple for Fanny Alger because Kirtland wasn’t finished until 1836 (when Elijah came to restore the sealing power.) Her sealing in particular was never recorded, but comes from first hand knowledge of people like Eliza R. Snow (another of Joseph’s plural wives.)
All sealings after 1838 were also outside a temple (and there were none between Alger in 1833 and 1838-9.) Due to the Kirtland Apostasy (due to the bank failure) Joseph left Kirtland in 1838 and the Nauvoo Temple wasn’t completed before his death in 1844. All sealings to Joseph were outside a temple; several women were sealed to Joseph after his death, making it unclear which were really wives prior to his death. So yes, historical records are scattered and unclear, many based on personal testimony of those women involved, or witnesses to the sealing ceremony. (I know in at least one case, the woman dressed as a man to avoid suspicion during the secret ceremony.)
Grateful that the leadership allowed the official record to state as much as it did (and wondering how many edits had to be made before the leaders signed off on it). I’m guessing the purpose of the essays is to lessen the sting many members feel when they find out details of 19th century polygamy that don’t square with the church’s previous depictions. The church admitting that the “Law of Sarah” was more a suggestion than a requirement will be very difficult for many mainstream women to swallow (although it does explain why polygamous marriages happened in my family over the strenuous objections of the 1st wife). As a woman in the church, this does *not* make me more accepting of polygamy in the past or in the possible celestial future. However, I see it as a step in the right direction as far as transparency goes. BTW, working in family history with women sealed to as many husbands as they lived with in their lifetimes has done the most to give me peace about marriage structures in the next life. We honestly don’t have a clue how things are going to be handled in the eternities.
“This refinement would make a people far more Christ-like wouldn’t it?” I don’t agree with this statement. It definitely makes people less invested in a relationship that doesn’t require fidelity to them (but the reverse isn’t true). If that’s Christ-like, I guess whatever gets you through it. Emotional intimacy, vulnerability, and loyal care of a spouse and family don’t require jealousy and possessiveness. Why would I, as one of multiple wives, be open and unguarded or rely on my husband for any emotional support? It reduces marriage to a joyless duty, a baby farm, a domestic workforce of wives.
Once again, we so desperately wish to apply our 20th and 21st century sensibilities to this issue as though we can read minds, make up history and interpret facts not in evidence. Applying the “I won’t like it, so they must not have either” test simply does not work.
Well, let’s start with living conditions in general. Who would like the fact that there was no running water, toilets, soft beds, warm homes, etc. None of us.
Was polygamy hard? I suspect it was. Harder on the women, probably. Strange to us, definitely. But then again so was blood-letting and taking a bath on an infrequent basis.
So lets put things in the right perspective and try to understand it from the time frame. given the permissiveness in society, I am actually surprised more people do not advocate for polygamy as they seem to do so for every other kind of relationship.
Well Hawk, the refinement I was referring to was the loss of selfishness, jealousy and possessiveness. I suspect you don’t believe Christ had much of these traits or that they are desirable for people so you seem to be making a different pro-monogamy argument. Less invested. Well the kind of network relationship I’m talking about is far less symbiotic and less contained so it’s more flexible and that flexibility facilitates growth rather than restricting it. In that way it’s less invested in the immature and insecure status quo. The current LDS marriage model is to marry young and therefor somewhat naive due to lacking experience, being in not of the world etc and early monogamous marriage in the 1/2 person + 1/2 person = 1 marriage unit he/she completes me model depends on symbiosis to continue to hold it together. If/when one partner grows too quickly or in the wrong direction for the marriage the other is often threatened and motivated by that insecurity seeks to reestablish homeostasis. But the network model isn’t for the insecure thus the start up problems until the participants become self assured enough to give up their insecurity and it’s outward expression of jealousy and possessiveness.
Howard, your views are more consistent with the Oneida Community experiments in the 1840s (elimination of any sort of exclusive relationships). Purposes for polygamy are debatable, but eliminating selfish feelings of jealousy have never been strong ones.
Jeff, the reason why we actually have good reason to compare ourselves with the women in the 19th century is that they also came from backgrounds where monogamy was the norm and sexual relations with multiple partners was frowned upon socially. Your reasoning may work better with the 2nd and 3rd generations of children who grew up in polygamous families and therefore were more conditioned to see it as normal. I can say among at least 2 of my female ancestors that they saw polygamy as the hardest struggle in their lives (and these are people that were sent to settle multiple frontier areas — they didn’t have a shortage of struggles to choose from). The fact that my other female ancestors chose to be silent rather than relating any sort of personal feelings about polygamy (positive or negative), doesn’t really give me much reason to assume they were wild about the practice either. What I do know is that wives lived in separate houses (in separate towns, in separate states, and in separate countries in one case) for a reason.
Mary Ann,
I don’t see the elimination of any sort of exclusive relationships as *the* goal, rather I see it as the result or byproduct of this refining process. I backed into this position after receiving a very strong witness of the restoration including Joseph and polygamy.! The polygamy part bothered me a great deal and being a descendant of polygamy I wanted to understand why God would command or even allow such a system. It took many years of investigation and experimentation to eventually arrive at theses conclusions and I believe branding Joseph as a fallen prophet or a tempted man for implementing it misses the mark.
Thank you! Women’s perspectives are obviously missing from this piece, and I’m not talking about historically. Rather, it’s obvious that women were not involved in writing it. The justifications these essays present for polygamy, especially in regards to the “Law of Sarah,” are nearly universally repugnant to the many women I have discussed this with over the past few days.
I’m going to over-generalize a bit, I’m sure. But from the conversations I’ve had with men and women about polygamy this week, this is what I’ve concluded: Men have a tendency to pontificate about polygamy in an emotionally detached way that is silencing, off-putting, and dismissive to women. There is a reason women don’t talk much about polygamy in mixed company. We are extremely emotionally invested because it effects us directly, even now. Women talk about polygamy in women-only spaces often, where we are free to share our horrors without being steamrolled by the men. And we are horrified.
Yes, our modern sensibilities are offended. Deeply offended. We don’t know if our husbands will marry other women when we are dead. We often suspect that most men want to, and that makes us doubt their love for us. We are wounded when we read D&C 132 describing us as property that belongs to men. We are frightened when we realize that the Law of Sarah is only a suggestion and that our say-so, our deep pain, doesn’t factor into the equation. We wonder why the God who suffered on the cross for us would threaten us with such a hell of a heaven. We wonder what our status in a polygamous relationship in the eternities means for our divine nature and individual worth.
I already anticipate the menfolk swooping in to stroke their chins knowingly and set me right. But the women will understand. No, these essays very clearly were written without the emotional investment and attention to contemporary pain that LDS women of all stripes have about polygamy.
Mary Ann,
“Jeff, the reason why we actually have good reason to compare ourselves with the women in the 19th century is that they also came from backgrounds where monogamy was the norm and sexual relations with multiple partners was frowned upon socially.”
All the more reason to not apply our modern morality to the picture. These were people raised in Pre-Victorian/post puritanical times and of course, it was a hard leap of faith to expect them to live such a law and situation. But yet, they did it. Many women struggled with it to be sure. For the most part, especially in the early days, they had no idea how to make it work, I’m sure.
I am not defending polygamy nor endorsing it. I am trying to point out that we can’t know for sure how it was, even from the writings. And we don’t seem to explore the other alternatives either. What was it like to a an unmarried woman or man at that time? A widow or widower with children? Could not have been an easy lot either.
What was it like to go from London to the desert wasteland of Utah? The challenges were many, so how did that enter into the polygamy equation? How much influence did a just plain life in Utah or some other remote place have on a plural wife? And entire family for that matter.
I think the fact that they did not live communally but in separate homes to be a plus not a minus.
Howard, I wasn’t giving any opinion on Joseph as a prophet. Experimentation with marriage structures was not uncommon in the 19th century, and the reasoning that you are giving for the implementation of polygamy is better suited to the Oneida Community. It sought to help bring about a more enlightened community through the elimination of exclusive relationship between sexual partners and parents/children. The opposite was the Shaker community, which used celibacy for the same goal of purifying their members from selfish desires. There are more obvious ways to go about eliminating selfish desires than spiritual wifery (Jacob Cochran) or Mormon Polygamy. I just don’t see it as a strong argument for why polygamy was required among early Mormons.
Pom – “We don’t know if our husbands will marry other women when we are dead. We often suspect that most men want to, and that makes us doubt their love for us.” Do you mean to say widows don’t remarry? I think they do, because Mary Ann says “working in family history with women sealed to as many husbands as they lived with in their lifetimes” brings her comfort. So, at the end of the day, men are sealed to all wives they’ve had in mortality, and women are sealed to all husbands they’ve had in mortality. How is that unfair?
Okay well, what are the more obvious ways to reduce/eliminate jealousy, possessiveness and selfishness. I suspect the Law of Consecration had that aim but our secular world actually greatly encourages and reenforces selfishness, for example the capitalistic economic system is the best system in the world. Why? Because it efficiently rewards greed. Selfishness is soooo reenforced that we (most affluent people?) believe we are “entitled” to that which we can afford and purchase. This sense of entitlement even spills over to our church with the juxtaposition of the multi-$Billion City Creek vs third world deaths due to malnutrition thirst and easily curable disease. We are actually very selfish but it is so strongly reenforced as being okay even desirable by the secular world and by the tones and hues of an implied prosperity gospel emitted by our church that we tend to gloss over the extent of it’s dysfunction and it’s implications.
I am in total agreement with Howard and that frightens me….. 🙂 it really is Halloween.
Oh no! This is way too weird!
I for one am also pleased to see the the essays from the church. My paternal grandfather brought a sixteen year old (my grandmother) to his first wife in her 30’s and asked for her permission to marry her. I cannot imagine my own feelings of being the first wife with this happening. What I do know is that I have had a spiritual witness of the validity of the church, and I appreciate the faith, suffering and hardships of these individuals in whatever role they had in the 19th century church more than ever.
Jeff: “Applying the “I won’t like it, so they must not have either” test simply does not work.” Two thoughts on this: 1) we don’t have to rely on contemporary women disliking it when the historical record is so clear that the women who participated in it also disliked it, and 2) it’s like an essay defending why our grandparents were slave-owners without any input from black people. Why wouldn’t we care how it sounds to them?
Like Laurel Lee, the one bright spot for women in polygamy is that some of the women had a spiritual confirmation that they should participate. That’s a comfort at least. But it wasn’t something they all got.
Howard: “what are the more obvious ways to reduce/eliminate jealousy, possessiveness and selfishness” That’s what everyone said in the 1970s when key parties were all the rage. Is that really what you are going for here?
Hawk,
We’ve discussed this topic several times, once you called it “wife swapping” and I told you then that cheapens what I’m talking about which is multiple connected and emotionally intimate relationships – now “key parties”? Please, I’m being serious here but you’re resorting to flip provocative sexually charged discounts aimed at the audience.
I suspect you take joy in other people’s joy. If you had a girlfriend who’s marriage had gone cold for a long time but was just recently rekindled I suspect you would be able to take joy in her romantic, sexual and emotional joy. But when we move this to your husband sleeping with another woman I doubt you would find much joy in it and you would argue he cheated and broke his covenants but in a poly relationship there is no such thing as “cheating” so what is your reason for being hurt and not taking joy in his joy? It’s probably because you’re jealous (selfish & possessive) and/or because you’re afraid he will reject, compare or leave you and also because after all it’s SEX we’re talking about here!!! Yes it’s sex alright but sex takes on exaggerated proportions in repressed cultures and people are capable of growing through these things to become more than they were.
The LDS natural man model is something like: at our core we crave sinning and it must me restrained by obedience and Christ is perfect through perfect obedience. But this is wrong, Christ is perfect via the mighty change of heart which quenches craving and compulsion and through the wisdom of understanding all things not by holding himself back with the restraint of perfect obedience, rather his behavior is driven by informed choice in the absence of compulsion. This is our model and it is expressed in the beatitudes and NOT by the ten commandments which are ridged approximations. So for now we are to live (serial) monogamy because we are far to immature to live the higher law.
Along with all the other points, the things that really galls me (and causes tremendous *ongoing* dissonance and pain) is that we are STILL practicing. Niceties aside, a divorced man can put in a request to have a sealing to a previous spouse canceled, and in all likelihood, his request will be denied. He can apply for a clearance, and be sealed TO A SECOND LIVING WOMAN. This is today, in 2014. A woman cannot do the same. She must have her sealing canceled if she wishes to be sealed again. But even if a man wishes a cancelation, it’s seldom granted. But a second sealing is not only totally fine, but common. This makes me ragey and stabby. It’s dishonest, to be as kind as possible, to say polygamy is in our past. It’s not.
Howard, I’ve seen you make this argument before. I don’t really have anything substantive to counter you with, but I have to say your stance makes me REALLY uncomfortable and just…icked out. I am glad I am not married to you.
Nona,
Can you describe “icked out” and what about my stance makes you feel that way?
Nona,
Also, Howard would like to know what you are wearing. No reason.
Wow Hawk! What’s this about today?
I don’t understand the law of Sarah. There is nothing about it on LDS.org other than the scripture reference and the definition of laws: “The commandments or rules of God upon which all blessings and punishments are based both in heaven and on earth.” It appears to mean that a man must ask his wife before taking a concubine. If she says no, then he can do it anyway and the wife becomes the transgressor and will be destroyed. Does anyone else have information from a legit source about it?
Also, I agree with Nona – icked out.
Comment 27 just made me laugh so hard I blew a booger onto my phone.
Howard, you are tone deaf on this topic. That’s what it’s about.
I too appreciate the increased frankness, however, I am distressed by the presentation. What the heck is the the law of Sarah? Did they just make it up? And if it is indeed like MM describes, where the woman becomes the transgressor for saying no, I am horrified. I don’t believe in a God like that. And does the law of Sarah justify hiding polygamous marriages from your wife? Does the law of Sarah mean you can just lie to your wife if she won’t agree? I’m disgusted and saddened. I honestly thought that I had learned everything I could about polygamy, but not that. I can’t believe lying and forcing your wife against her will can be the law of God.
Hmm, tone deaf, well maybe so MH.
But it quickly devolved on it’s own into slurs, innuendo and a little girl coodie level of ickness which in a perverse and somewhat twisted way supports my immaturity point. They don’t like it, they’re threatened by it but they’re unwilling to put that out clearly in adult language, instead they blow 3 year-old raspberries.
Howard: I’ve noticed over a couple of years that you often comment on how plural marriage could refine people and make them more Christ-like by compelling them to face jealousy and ensuing heartache. That’s certainly one opinion.
But honestly, how can this be viable? How can wives dealing with jealousy, loneliness, and unmet needs refine husbands? What jealousies does he deal with, other than another man getting to a new arrival before he does, as was the case with Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor who had to be separated by others during a dance where they almost came to blows over a young miss? What unmet needs do husbands have in plural marriage? When do they suffer loneliness and heartache? Again, how does this merit praise for refining men?
Also, how can spending less time with a husband build a closer, more intimate and fulfilling relationship? Marriage must be nurtured and fed by both partners fully devoted. How can a man divide his time among many and accomplish such nurturing and growth? You once stated that it’s like children sharing their parents’ time. But marriage is nothing like the parent/child relationship if done in healthy and devoted ways.
To compare polygamy to Christ-likeness, and monogamy to the Pharisees ways is completely backward to me. Polygamy is ALL about a man’s fulfillment with women suffering, doing without, making do, pretending they’re okay, seeking love from a myriad other ways, and enduring constant loneliness. Seriously, how can you believe this is Christ-like? Why do you feel those who can’t learn to accept such loss are immature? I’ve asked you these questions before, but your answers don’t seem to be answers to me. I’d like to understand how you get to these conclusions. The only way I can see this lifestyle working is if there is no deep need for deep love and intimacy among those in the marriage—that every person would be happy with more superficial emotions. I can see how this sort of mindset could make plural marriage work. If a woman isn’t lonely sleeping by herself most of the time, and doesn’t overly love her husband, then she wouldn’t expect much from him and wouldn’t be disappointed when she gets only a small portion of his time and affection. A woman who isn’t very emotional wouldn’t feel lonely, or jealous, or sad, or angry to any degree of pain to herself or her husband. Again, she has little need for him. Maybe there are women like this, though I’ve never known any personally. But if they exist, I hope you find them in your world.
I also think a narcissistic man is necessary for plural marriage to work well. He must feel confident that his needs are most important or he would feel bad for his wives left alone at any given time. He believes he deserves these wives and can handle them, and he has little responsibility toward their joy, for they need to seek their own happiness. Of course, narcissism is the polar opposite of being Christ-like, but that’s okay—many wives are a man’s reward for righteousness.
Now what is a woman’s reward for righteousness? Seriously, I ask in all respectfulness: What is a woman’s reward for righteousness? Can anybody tell me what reward do women receive in exaltation? Sharing? Aching? Weeping? Sorrow? Pain? Loss? Loneliness? Small percentages? Pretending that this form of marriage is the “highest, holiest” way to live?
With all due respect, if you think we are that gullible, you are the one who is immature in that you see the needs of women through a very short-sighted and darkened lens. We are worth so much more than living under such hideous conditions. Such would actually be hell, not Heaven.
Oh, and another thing Howard: regarding narcissism……a man having many wives for his “joy” at the expense of loss of joy to his wives is true narcissism. Then, to say they are being “selfish, petty, and possessive rather than taking joy in his joy” is also pure, undiluted narcissism. Also, narcissists don’t have much empathy. Hope you can someday see the very real slippery slope plural marriage creates. Perhaps you feel you would treat your wives like Queens. But if you listen to what women want, you’ll see that your definition of doing that is not likely what will make them feel like a queen.
Plainoldme wrote: How can wives dealing with jealousy, loneliness, and unmet needs refine husbands? I’m glad you asked! I don’t think it can be done by just living polygyny but it was suggested to me that living polygyny plus the Law of Consecration back when property was considered the man’s might do it. However, I personally resolve this via polygyny *plus* polyandry. Joseph married a few women who were already married to then living men. It had been his pattern to live polygyny before he formally recorded it as revelation and commanded it, he may have been doing the same with polyandry. In addition this would explain why he was putting those married men through the pain of asking for their wives. No you may not want to live polyandry yourself but as long as one (or some) of your husband’s wives do he will be given that growth opportunity.
Also, how can spending less time with a husband build a closer, more intimate and fulfilling relationship? I’m suggesting that women also have an option to have more than one husband. In addition raising kids with multiple moms allowed some women the freedom to go to school etc. Now I realize men tend to be more polygamous than women and therefore women tend to be more monogamous than men so the split will not be 50/50. But consider that in the current system men who tend to be more polygamous are compelled to be monogamous so the polygyny *plus* polyandry system isn’t anymore unfair to women than the current monogamous system is to men.
Polygamy is ALL about a man’s fulfillment with women suffering, doing without… Well it was that way, I pretty much agree with you but it is my belief that the way it was practiced was incomplete. I’m talking about polygyny *plus* polyandry, in addition women have made some progress against chauvinism and misogyny since then. Seriously, how can you believe this is Christ-like? Well in the beginning it isn’t, that’s what the refining is about. Each must work through their own selfishness, jealousy and possessiveness. this process may well require multiple generations to finally accomplish.
Why do you feel those who can’t learn to accept such loss are immature? Because I’ve been through it myself and I’ve watched many others go through it. One begins with a lot of selfishness, jealousy and possessiveness and progresses to a point where it almost disappears. But this doesn’t happen on it’s own. You must know a woman who’s husband “cheated” on her and she was devastated. She never has a change to grow from it because everyone rushes to her side and sympathetically enables her, what a cad he is they say! Poor jilted women, take him to the cleaners, they say! All of the attention, sympathy and enabling derails the potential for personal growth available to her at this time. It all drama and no growth.
The only way I can see this lifestyle working is if there is no deep need for deep love and intimacy among those in the marriage—that every person would be happy with more superficial emotions. Well you can find this description but it’s also possible to find multiple connected and emotionally intimate relationships. It’s much harder to live than monogamous marriage but it’s also more rewarding after the growth is finally done. It would be easier to do under a divine theocracy especially in a somewhat closed community.
With all due respect, if you think we are that gullible… No I don’t think you’re gullible, I think you’ve missed considering the polygyny *plus* polyandry part above.
Hawk. Much of what you wrote resonated with my own take on these issues. However, this discussion quickly went to hell in a hand basket. I’ve read the journals and histories of my ancestors involved in this relic of barbarism. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn of a lot of poisoned Postum being served back in the day…
I don’t actually want to know the answer to this, but how is polyandry + polygyny an improvement on monogamy? I thought God was not the author of confusion. This just sounds like some convoluted wife swapping deal, again, the proverbial celestial key party. What’s the point? How does that make anyone more Christ-like? How does it model better behavior for kids? Also, how does this jibe with the view that gay people should be celibate for life rather than homosexually active? Straight people should be able to have many sexual partners but gay people none?
For quite some time, the LDS Church was adamant that Joseph was a polygamist, while the RLDS was equally adamant that he was not. Then for inexplicable reasons, they seemed to switch sides on the issue. More recently, it seems they’re coming around to the same side of the question. Very odd.
Polyandry + polygyny an improvement on monogamy due to the personal growth it demands and then facilitates. How does that make anyone more Christ-like? Buy refining out selfishness, jealousy and possessiveness. Unless of course you believe Christ is selfish,jealous and possessive. How does it model better behavior for kids? Probably about the same as polygamy did in the early church. Also, how does this jibe with the view that gay people should be celibate for life rather than homosexually active? You got me, I don’t buy that doctrine.
“Polygamy is ALL about a man’s fulfillment with women suffering, doing without… ”
Well, there it is again. A value judgement without proof. Marriage relationships take all forms from the very intimate and close to not much than an “arrangement>” It is more than true today.
What kills me is the idea that people in this time understood that time. It is apparent most do not. That what historians help us with. context.
Howard, we should probably also poke our eyes with needles until we are blind so that we can truly understand long suffering. And we should only feed our children once a week so they will know the importance of true gratitude. And maybe we could all commit to live in cardboard boxes so we can learn real humility. You see the slippery-ness of the slope, right???
Orange, the scriptures don’t say it is OK to hide the marriages or lie to the first wife although the potential for that is definitely there. It is indeed a very disturbing”law”.
MM, while I agree with you in general, the scriptures have a lot of weird stuff, so be careful. Abraham told Pharaoh that Sarai was his sister. Lot’s daughters got him drunk and had sex with him. Judah slept with his daughter in law because he thought she was a prostitute. So just be careful about appealing to scriptures. There’s a lot of weird stuff in there.
Hawkgrrrl,
Thanks for the thoughtful and serious discussion/response.
I will try to respond to several of your concluding statements and questions:
The only ones who don’t win are (once again) the women. How are we dealing with the “tough issues” when we don’t care how the ones who bear the larger burden are impacted?
A: There is some mention of this, but it was not the focus of the essays. Some “tough issues” is more accurate. But the topic is fully open now.
There’s no mention of the mortification these women experienced as they sat in the first Relief Society, knowingly deceiving Emma, their president, hiding the fact that they were married to her husband, to say nothing of Emma’s betrayal and heartbreak.
A: There is no contemporary record that Emma did not know at that time. That may be one reason the church does not say this, it may not be true!
The essays fail to truly acknowledge how plural marriage harms women, very disproportionately to men.
A: Some women are harmed more, others not.
I suspect this is for three reasons: 1) no women were involved in writing or reviewing the essays (although if there were, they would probably find the one woman it doesn’t make vomit)
A: I have no idea if this is true, but I highly doubt no women were involved at all.
2) many church leaders descend from polygamists and are loath to criticize the marriages of their great grandparents,
A: They may also have good reasons not to do so. How many plural wives stayed close to each other long after their husband died? How about other notable records of cooperation and harmony? Some of the marriages are clearly outstanding. One notable FP member has no connection in his family to that era.
3) some church leaders believe and hope that plural marriage is their right in the eternities.
A: Some current and recently deceased leaders have every reason to hope so, since they have been married multiple times. It is probably wild speculation about the other possibilities.
On the upside, I am hopeful that nobody will again ask us to teach a lesson about the exemplary, harmonious marriage that Emma & Joseph didn’t really have.
A: There can be some good examples taken from that relationship, but a whole lesson is a huge stretch. As noted above, we do not have good documentation of the full nature of their relationship. More contemporary church leaders make far better examples to emulate, due to more details about them.
Howard we get it, you want the world to be one open marriage so people aren’t jealous when their spouses decide they want to have sex with the neighbor. The idea that a person with a cheating spouse should use the experience to learn to give up selfishness and jealousy is insulting as is your use of quotation marks around the word cheating. Maybe if you willing entered into an open marriage where you agreed each spouse could have sex with whomever they wanted it would only be “cheating” but I don’t remembering that promise as a part of my marriage vows.
Practices similar to polygyny and polyandry and their impact on virtues and spiritual welfare are discussed in 1st and 2nd Corinthians. Paul was basically against whatever didn’t square with faithful monogamy.
Mormon Heretic those examples are all in the bible which we believe as far as it is translated correctly. I like to pretend that those along with others like the deception of husband and father to get the birthright are some of those incorrectly translated stories. I don’t have that luxury with the D&C however so that scripture is very disturbing to me.
MM, there are lots of mistranslations, but Joseph never corrected these specific scriptures, and there are no reasons to believe the scriptures I cited are translated incorrectly. There is lots of icky stuff, especially in the Old Testament.
Sorry Jeff, but I’ve read multiple journals and works on plural marriage. How can you possibly deny that the women did without?! If a husband sleeps with his other wives, every wife who is left alone does without. Duh! She is alone and suffers loss. She suffers less income available—the poverty of my ancestors was unbelievable. Intimacy—I’ve read of women longing in their journal writings for their husband to love them the way they loved him. But no, they did without. Again…… More doing without. More suffering. More pain and sorrow.
Now, what did the men do without? Did they do without physical intimacy? Obviously not. Did they do without food and clothing? No, they had to be fed so they could work. Did they prefer one wife over another? Yes….no going without preferences met. Tell me Jeff, what exactly did the men do without?
The men gain and enjoy abundant, non-stop companionship, sexual relations, having someone to sleep close to at night, and less responsibility to meet individual needs because he just doesn’t have the time, shucks. The women are predominately single mothers. Children do not have deep relationships with Dad because there isn’t enough of him to go around. So how does this make him a better father? How does it make him a better husband?
And how can anyone believe this is of God? It’s cruel to women whether you see it or not. You criticize me for judging them from my perspective today. I have read the firsthand accounts of the sorrows suffered and the brave faces before the public women put on this form of marriage. The men loved it! It made them feel young. Brigham Young said polygamous men lived longer. The women drooped into sour old age, often bitter at their lost dreams and hopes, their children their only joy. How can the Holy Spirit of Promise put his seal upon such lonely, sorrowful marriages? It mocks Diety to think He’d ever do that to women who lived bereft of happiness in the most important relationship in life.
Read Brian Hales series. Read Todd Compton. They spin the pros of strong, independent women, but today the church frowns on that very thing—don’t let others raise your children, and only get an education to help you find work if your husband dies.
As to judging them from my perspective today…..how else can we judge? We take the books and articles of scholars from our day who are judging from their perspective, and you do the very same thing. I hope someday you will be willing to read the actual journals of the women who lived this horrible way of life. They suffered mightily. They suffered mightily. Please stop trying to minimize their sorrows by putting an unrealistic goodness to polygamy. You belittle their sacrifices. You ignore their pain. Their voices were unheard in their own day but to God. But they are heard by their sisters today and we will never let them be silenced again.
Now, tell me, how did polygamy cause men to do without? How did it cause them to suffer loneliness and sorrow, unmet needs, and happiness in marriage?
Howard: you remind me of an Institute teacher I once had who thought it was possible that in the CK everyone would be sealed to everyone else so anyone could sleep with anyone they wanted to and there’d be no harm in it. I hope you’re both profoundly wrong.
Ha ha. I know Mormon Heretic. That’s why I pretend.
I actually had a interesting conversation with a friend of a different faith a few years ago. She was offended that Mormons didn’t fully believe the bible. After much discussion, she came to see the possibility of innocent and/or deliberate changes in wording which could skew meaning and intent. I asked her what she thought of some of those questionable stories and her answer was interesting. She postulated that those stories were included in the scriptures to serve as a reminder that all of God’s children are imperfect and commit sin, even prophets. Food for thought I guess.
I don’t really like the discussions about who had it worse in general, men or women. I think we need to understand how it hurt individuals and listen to all their stories. That women’s stories haven’t been told and that many details about their stories are lost to history because they were women is a tragedy. We haven’t talked much about the men who had their wives taken by prophets or quietly left the church as they weren’t able to find a wife in the church because others viewed women as possessions and tools to build their empire in the next life. All of us are hurt today by the churches apologetics for stuff that was simply immoral. We don’t talk very much about the cost to people who stood up to Joseph and were destroyed by him as he sought to hide what was going on. There is also real pain today for a man who loves a woman who loves him, but they don’t marry because they can’t be sealed because she wants more children and already has children with the man she is divorced from. We still don’t have a direct statement saying that polygamy won’t be required in the highest level of the celestial kingdom. Meanwhile we produce materials saying marriage is between one man and one woman without any sense of irony or explanation of how that position fits with our sealing practices or history. Can we just agree that we were all hurt by the abomination that was polygamy and that regardless of the degree to which our particular demographic was hurt by it we need to repudiate it?
Delina wrote: Howard we get it… No, you don’t get it. learning to transcend selfishness is the goal and polygamy is the method, not the other way around.
Watch a 3 year-old grasp a toy tightly while firmly declaring “mine!!!”. Unfortunately that is still very much a part of most adult’s personality because it is indulged and enabled, even the capitalistic economic system is designed around facilitating this childish, selfish motivation.
Howard I think the problem is you are conflating an expectation of fidelity with selfishness. Is it selfish to expect that a person keep their promises to me? Is the person who goes into a marriage being told they are their spouses “one and only” being the selfish one to find out that they are actually only one of many? Or is the spouse who lied and has taken others the selfish one? It sounds like you and I have different opinions on who and what is selfish.
There are many ways to learn selflessness I strongly disagree that polygamy or polyandry is a very successful method.
No Delina, I’m not conflating an expectation of fidelity with selfishness. I’m not arguing that fidelity is wrong or inferior. If a person who is not selfish, jealous or possessive enters into an exclusive relationship it will not make them selfish, jealous or possessive. In addition an expectation of fidelity may also exist in a poly relationships, that is an expectation of fidelity to the current participants with perhaps rules relating to the acceptance of new participants. So fidelity isn’t the issue, the problem is most of us begin selfish, jealous and possessive so how can this be refined out?
Is it selfish to expect that a person keep their promises to me? No! But if your selfishness, jealousy and possessiveness is never challenged (which is a main goal of monogamous marriage) how will you transcend it?
There are many ways to learn selflessness… This was argued in #16 by Mary Ann so I asked her what those ways are and I’m still waiting for her answer. Perhaps you can answer?
Honestly, Howard, I think monogamy is an excellent way to overcome selfishness. It very frequently requires one participant to place their own needs, desires and dreams aside or on hold in support of the other. It reqires two people to rreally work together, compromise, and understand and love one another. Unlike polygamy which allows one partner to just go find someone else to fill those needs/desires.
Well nona you certainly have a valid point. But, have you reached the level of selflessness that you would share your husband with other women? Could you willingly share him without jealously and possessiveness if you were asked to by the prophet?
BL writes: I don’t really like the discussions about who had it worse in general, men or women. I think we need to understand how it hurt individuals and listen to all their stories. That women’s stories haven’t been told and that many details about their stories are lost to history because they were women is a tragedy.[BUT] We haven’t talked much about the men who had their wives taken by prophets or quietly left the church as they weren’t able to find a wife in the church because others viewed women as possessions and tools to build their empire in the next life
I’m surprised it took 54 comments to get to #notallmen and #whataboutthemen, frankly. BL, go back and read #51. I have trouble believing that men and women saw it as an equal sacrifice, for the reasons that plainoldme lays out so eloquently. But, mostly, the fact is that women almost universally hated it. Hated it. They lived with it because they had faith, because they had limited options, because they didn’t know what else to do – but the poorly-studied, broadly-ignored, oft-misrepresented contemporary record is very clear that the practice was almost universally hated by the women of the Church.
Trying to equate that to the butthurt of some poor guy because some other higher-ranking guy got the girl he wanted is simply another way of delegitimizing the womens’ viewpoint.
Well as I am not a parent, I have yet to have to strategically think about teaching anyone, but a quick Google search gives a lot of ideas on how to teach it children to be less selfish. I personally feel that learning about the disparity in income, lifestyle, privilege, etc makes me feel compelled to be less selfish and give of my time and resources to help those who were not as lucky as I. And as Nona said there is a lot of overcoming selfishness in a monogamous relationship.
As for jealousy and possessiveness these are constantly a challenge in a monogamous relationship (not necessarily for everyone but by many), and I disagree that one of the main goals of such relationships is to not have this challenged. I love and trust my husband but that doesn’t mean that my own insecurity doesn’t cause me to have flashes of jealousy or possessiveness when he interacts with some women. As a result I work on feeling more secure and less possessive or jealous and learn to trust more. Even in friendships there is sometimes possessiveness and jealousy and most would agree that it is not the norm to have only one friend. So if the only way to learn to give up these traits is to have them constantly challenged I would say that our current relationships already do this, there is no need to throw multiple partners/spouses into the mix.
If as you suggest your current relationships already do this you will soon be graduating to the place that sharing your spouse causes you little or no dissonance. Won’t you? Or it is possible that we are talking about different levels of selflessness here?
You know, Howard, I am going to admit something I don’t often confess. In fact, I am not sure I ever have told anyone this…but yes, there have been times–when I was exhausted during recovery from childbirth, or when my husband and I are at odds over some disagreement, or when I just long for more independence and space–during those times I have on occasion thought that it might be easier to just say “go…go find someone else to fill your needs for intimacy and connection. At this moment I just don’t have the emotional resources to give you what you need.” But I really think that impulse is driven by laziness and selfishness. Thankfully my husband instead stayed stubbornly by my side and insisted that we work through our differences, balance our needs and find a way to again become “one.” I’d I had instead taken what you believe to be the selfless approach and sent him to another we, as the unified couple we strive to be, would be over.
“For their part, many Latter-day Saint women publicly defended the practice of plural marriage, arguing in statements that they were willing participants.”
According to the so called law of Sarah, it makes sense that women who did not like/hated/struggled with/were oppressed by polygamy would say these kinds of things. Their eternal salvation was at stake. They risked being called transgressors and being destroyed by God.
nona,
It isn’t exhaustion or being at odds that I’m talking about but it is interesting that those things apparently brought you to the point of accepting that sex with another isn’t the big taboo that some people want to make it into.
An affair by itself isn’t reasonable or healthy grounds for a divorce. Why do you assume it would necessarily cause you to be non-unified in the future? I know a woman who was separated for 2 1/2 years not by choice, it was triggered by her husband’s affair so she ended up dating and slept with another man. Then they talked through their differences with a therapist and decided to get back together. Their relationship is much closer than it ever was and their coping skills much improved.
Howard there is clearly no point in conversing with you. You have obviously made up your mind that a “free love” paradigm. Is the ideal approach to human sexual relationships. I disagree. The end.
Howard I disagree with your fundamental premise that perfect selflessness equals happily sharing your spouse. As this is fundamental to your argument, I see no chance that either of us will ever agree on this subject. We both tried but I think it’s time we agree to disagree. Have a lovely day.
I just don’t think the criticism made in this piece holds up to the actual text of the essays. I skimmed through them, and cut and pasted the following below. Is this an in-depth treatment of women’s lived experience of polygamy? Of course not, that is a huge topic and frankly an entirely different kind of historical project than the institutional history that the essays are intended to address.
General Relief Society president Zina D. H. Young, writing in her journal on the day the Manifesto was presented to the Church, captured the anguish of the moment: “Today the hearts of all were tried but looked to God and submitted.”23 The Manifesto prompted uncertainty about the future of some relationships. Eugenia Washburn Larsen, fearing the worst, reported feeling “dense darkness” when she imagined herself and other wives and children being “turned adrift” by husbands.24 Other plural wives, however, reacted to the Manifesto with “great relief.”25
Accounts left by men and women who practiced plural marriage attest to the challenges and difficulties they experienced, such as financial difficulty, interpersonal strife, and some wives’ longing for the sustained companionship of their husbands.11
Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,” suggesting that the relationship did not involve sexual relations.27 After Joseph’s death, Helen remarried and became an articulate defender of him and of plural marriage.28
These sealings may also be explained by Joseph’s reluctance to enter plural marriage because of the sorrow it would bring to his wife Emma.
The women who united with Joseph Smith in plural marriage risked reputation and self-respect in being associated with a principle so foreign to their culture and so easily misunderstood by others. “I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life,” said Zina Huntington Jacobs, “for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman.” Nevertheless, she wrote, “I searched the scripture & by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself.”36 After Joseph’s death, most of the women sealed to him moved to Utah with the Saints, remained faithful Church members, and defended both plural marriage and Joseph.37
Plural marriage was difficult for all involved. For Joseph Smith’s wife Emma, it was an excruciating ordeal. Records of Emma’s reactions to plural marriage are sparse; she left no firsthand accounts, making it impossible to reconstruct her thoughts.
According to Helen Mar Kimball, Joseph Smith stated that “the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the Saints would ever have to test their faith.” Though it was one of the “severest” trials of her life, she testified that it had also been “one of the greatest blessings.”46
Lucy Walker recalled her inner turmoil when Joseph Smith invited her to become his wife. “Every feeling of my soul revolted against it,” she wrote. Yet, after several restless nights on her knees in prayer, she found relief as her room “filled with a holy influence” akin to “brilliant sunshine.”
I don’t want to be unduly critical of the linked piece, because I know it is only reflecting frustrations in the air. I do think it implies pretty clearly that a) 19th century Mormon women’s response to/experience of polygamy was uniformly negative; b) contemporary LDS women’s informed response to learning about polygamy can only be negative; and c) women’s contribution to historiography should primarily be concerned with highlighting “a woman’s perspective” (from the title of the post). I think the piece is mistakenly broad-brushing on all of these points, and I find the last one personally irritating. I spent five minutes in the notes, and I found at least a dozen female scholars cited. Women historians’ contributions were clearly included.
More generally, this post reveals a deeply presentist perspective and a troubling conflation of 19th-century and 21st-century responses. The author slides rather wildly between her personal revulsion, the revulsion she assumes all other LDS women currently feel, and the revulsion she assumes all 19th century women felt. She interprets 19th-century experience entirely in terms of present day values and concepts. The irony is that is so doing, *she* is the one inadvertently erasing our foremothers’ lived experience.
New Iconoclast,
I never said it was an equal sacrifice. I believe that in general women had it much worse than men. I believe that women have it worse now than men. I disagree strongly that all or close to all men benefited. I think abandoning our polygamous past benefits both men and women and in general prefer the arguments to be presented that way. Call it the Emma Watson approach if you want.
RW: I definitely don’t feel that women historians should be primarily concerned with highlighting a woman’s perspective; I would likewise find that irritating. My concern is that the piece is an apologetic for a practice that *most* women find repugnant, and it is written from a very male perspective, defending the practice. I’m glad women historians were quoted; that’s not really the same as having some women read the completed essay critically to assess how it comes across to women who read it.
Yes, that’s a concern with how this doctrine is being embraced with its implications for the present. Male leaders primarily concerned with defending it are my concern. The fact that we are defending it is a concern to me as it is to most women in the church. The ones not concerned with it (those more charitable souls that I mentioned in the OP) are able to shelve it or to envision polygamy as being better than a “bad” monogamous marriage. Any port in a storm.
As for erasing our foremothers’ lived experience, I don’t have any polygamous foremothers, but the actual histories I’ve read are filled with the negative effects many of them felt (with a few who had a spiritual confirmation of the practice, and I am loath to criticize that – it was their sacrifice, not mine). The essays are probably the best the church could do without refuting polygamy, which they are apparently unwilling to do. It could be the hill I choose to die on. It is evidently a hill they are willing for many of us to die on.
Howard, I apologize for not replying to your question earlier, as I haven’t been able to get back to this discussion until now. I believe that I already explained two different marriage structure systems that were formed with the elimination of selfish desires in mind: the free love Oneida Community (where exclusive relationships between sexual partners and parents/children were expressly prohibited) and the celibate Shaker Community. Both of those are much more logical than polygamy if you’re trying to create a new marriage/family structure for the purpose of eliminating selfish desires. Both of these structures proved nonviable in the 19th Century.
I will grant you that the Law of Consecration seems to have been created to encourage elimination of selfish desires in favor of a Zion (“One in Heart”) philosophy. Even among the times that the Law of Consecration was lived fully, however, spouses were never considered common property. Polygamy requires almost as much exclusivity as monogamy, though the men approved by church leaders to participate in polygamist relationships were allowed a greater number of partners who would need to stay exclusive to them. Eliminating selfish desires has much more to do with the heart of an individual rather than the material goods/exclusive relationships he or she is *forced* to surrender. That is why the Law of Consecration failed. Based on the examples of the City of Enoch and the Book of Mormon, the Law of Consecration can only be practiced fully *after* hearts of an entire community have been changed through the gospel. I don’t know what type of marriage structures exist at that point, but 4 Nephi definitely tells us that people after Christ’s appearance were married and given in marriage, implying some sort of exclusive relationships.
As for the eternities, I don’t believe it will be a free love community, but there are definitely going to be a lot of kinks to work out. As per current church policy, every individual has a right to be sealed to every spouse they lived with in mortality (women have to wait till after death for this). Clearly there’s going to be some shuffling around in the hereafter and possibly some relationships emerging that may seem foreign to us in this life.
I’m going to take Howard’s advice to heart and start a campaign of home invasion robbery to help eliminate selfishness. People get too attached to their things. This will improve their character.
As for women’s perspectives on polygamy in the 19th Century, it is difficult to get at accurate feelings without heading to the personal diaries and autobiographies. From 1852 till the Manifesto, public testimonies in favor of polygamy were required, otherwise members would be seen as unfaithful to current church leadership and favorable to the RLDS community. This is when many of Joseph’s plural wives came out and testified that Joseph was a polygamist — they were supporting the church’s argument that the Utah Saints were the true spiritual descendants of Joseph’s legacy rather than Emma and those who stayed in the Midwest. After the Manifesto, any public testimonies in favor of polygamy were seen as potentially harmful to the church leadership (the government could go after them again) and possibly supportive of dissidents. This is when mention of Joseph’s polygamy fell by the wayside and eventually out of the mainstream conscious. Knowledge of the timing of public bias for and against polygamy is critical in understanding any sort of public statements or testimonies.
Perhaps the home invasions could be timed to coincide with the key and wife swapping parties for extra benefit.
Howard,
If you are interested in overcoming your attachments, I know a Nigerian Prince who could really use all of your savings. He said he will pay you back in the eternities, in the meantime I can act as broker. Cash or Cashiers check works for me.
Oh come one Pete! Thomas S. Monson has been doing that for years!
I hate the rationale of “of course these women said good things about it, their eternal welfare was at stake!”. It demeans these womens’ choices, the lives that they made as a part of their faith, even if you think that faith is misguided.
It also demeans the choices of women who make this choice for themselves today, without any religious or relationship pressure.
No, I don’t believe polygyny (or polyandry, or whatever) is for everyone, but I do believe many of the men and women who had it asked of them and were able to live it were included in those that could. Many were also not suited to it and did their best anyway. Many also had great heartache at the life that was given them. But all, I believe, will have the relationships that best suit them in the hereafter, whatever “them” they are when their two lives, pre-earth and earth, are made into one.
Polygamy/plural marriage/spiritual wife system or whatever name it is given by the lechers who want to engage in it is an abomination and complete perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon completely condemns the practice. Read here: http://gregstocks.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/polygamy-vs-the-book-of-mormon/
Rosalynde stated my feelings far better than I could have. This post basically says “Polygamy is such a horrible thing, primarily for women, that clearly no woman’s perspective matters or the essays would have made it clear how repugnant and evil the practice is”. Many commenters share that point of view.
First of all, I think we project way too much of our mortal experience into the eternities. I have no idea what genitals on resurrected bodies would even be for, and I expect the eternities to offer a great deal more intimacy than earthly physical intimacy (which, fueled by dopamine and endorphins has got to be primarily illusory). Someone saying she’s icked out by eternal polygamy reminds me of my 4-year-old self saying I never wanted to get baptized because I was scared of someone pushing my head under the water.
The essays have got to be apologetic in tone. The church is founded on the idea that Joseph was a prophet. It’s very hard to argue that Joseph died a faithful prophet if what killed him was his institution of a practice which God abhored. Joseph claimed God commanded him. The devious/bumbling way in which he went about it can be explained by his human failings, but not plural marriage itself, or else Joseph looks, at best, like a fallen prophet, or at worst, like a fraud from the beginning. The church doesn’t accept that, so of course the church isn’t going to denounce the practice.
Can you describe the non-devious, non-bumbling way he could have gone about it?
For the record I didn’t say I was ickedout by eternal polygamy, i said I was icked out by Howard’s bizarre soapboxing about how women should take joy in their husband having great sex with another woman.
My feelings about eternal polygamy are much much bigger than icked out. My feelings on that subject have kept me up many long night’s crying in despair and fear that God doesn’t love or value me or want me to be happy. Those go way beyond ick.
Nona, I am really sorry if the thought of eternal polygamy causes you despair. I really was terrified of the water when I was young, too, but my parents said exactly the right thing: “You don’t have to do it if you don’t want to. Don’t worry about it right now. You can decide when you’re older.” If there is such a thing as eternal polygamy, and I’m not convinced either way, it may not apply to everyone, and I’m absolutely positive that God won’t require anything of us that would lead to eternal unhappiness. That just wouldn’t make sense, nor is it worth believing or even worrying about.
Personally, if I died prematurely, I’d hope my wife could find a really good guy to marry. I’d be much more worried about her being alone than I would about whether she might get posthumously sealed to him, and possibly would choose him over me in the resurrection. Somehow, things would work out just fine, and I don’t think either of us would be “rejected”. I’m totally convinced of that. Our current reality is very, very small.
Martin, just no. You are actually infantilizing the legitimate concerns of women by literally comparing those women to a child afraid of water? Words fail.
“or else Joseph looks, at best, like a fallen prophet, or at worst, like a fraud from the beginning.”
There is no need to this false dichotomy. The Community of Christ, for example, believes Joseph is a prophet who is not perfect. They don’t believe he is a false prophet, fallen prophet, or a fraud. One can appreciate the good of Joseph Smith, recognize the bad, without calling him fallen or a fraud. We don’t need more false dichotomies. Apparently some of us need to recognize that Joseph doesn’t need to be false accused of being all good or all bad, however. Are you all good or all bad, or a mixture? (If you can see it in yourself, why can’t you see it in Joseph?)
Sheesh, Hawk. The “we are children to God” analogy is standard church fare. Maybe if a woman had said it.
All I can offer is my perspective about something I’ve made peace with. You can delegitimize it because I’m a man if you want.
MH, it’s not a false dichotomy in my mind. Plural marriage was a radical departure from the norm. He claimed it a revelation and commanded its practice. It determined the course of the church (in many ways became the identity of the church) estranged many of it’s most ardent followers, and directly led to his death. I don’t think you can brush it off as a mistake.
The idea that the purpose of polygamy is to foster unselfishness doesn’t seem to work on the Mormon paradigm. The Mormon paradigm seems to treat humans as ontologically incomplete without a spouse. Marriage is an end in itself, not the means to some other end.
Martin, are you all good or all bad?
MH, If I ate babies it wouldn’t matter if I was kind to my wife. It’s a matter of magnitude.
I think the real reason Hawk responded so negatively to my take on things is because she and many others would love the church to declare plural marriage a mistake, and they’re very emotionally invested in that. I don’t see how that could happen. How can one sustain a prophet as a real prophet if he can lead the church so utterly and completely wrong. There’d be no point in having one. I think there are other ways of dealing with plural marriage that make a lot more sense, and they’re not infantilizing despite what Hawk says.
I can believe the prophet made mistakes, that he was a hot mess; and yet God still restored the Gospel through him and by him. The OT proves that prophets are hot messes. And it’s even possible that God was unhappy with the roll out of the whole thing that he made sure a martyrdom happened to stop the insanity. I don’t think we’ll know til we’re on the other side. I don’t know, you don’t know. I believe it’s possible that Brigham Young was a prophet that God used to bring about his will. I can believe that the racism of the time and culture influenced the members and our prophet to institute a racial ban against God’s will and . . . guess what: my testimony is strengthened because not even a racist prophet can destroy the work of God. The work isn’t so flimsy that us humans down here can muck it up – and believing that our leaders can’t be wrong about something, even big things, can be just as damaging as not having a prophet.
Work out your own salvation before the Lord; I can sustain my prophets by believing they are men whom God has chosen to lead us at this time and he expects us all to work together in this great work and even as Brigham said, exercise influence over our leaders.
FYI I don’t think Joseph was a fallen prophet, but know people who do. I’m not sure if Joseph was deceived or confused or correct about the revelation on polygamy – what I do know is that he made massive errors in human judgment in its implementation; and that was a hot mess. To believe the deceit and coercion (there is nothing else you can call telling girls/women that their and/or their family’s exaltation hangs in the balance) was God’s will? Now that will destroy my testimony of prophets right quick.
Martin, if you eat babies you are all bad. That’s pretty simple. I’m not going to argue with someone who produces such dopey arguments.
Martin: “Sheesh, Hawk. The “we are children to God” analogy is standard church fare. Maybe if a woman had said it.” No, it’s a phrase that is applied equally to men and women.
“All I can offer is my perspective about something I’ve made peace with. You can delegitimize it because I’m a man if you want.” Surely even you can see the difference between a man making peace with polygyny and a woman making peace with it. That’s like saying “I’ve made peace with my infidelity, why can’t my wife?” The man is not required to be loyal to one wife, he can add any new wife he desires, but the wives must each be loyal to one husband. The historical record is quite clear that the men involved in polygamy usually took great pleasure in it, especially in adding new young wives. The burden on the women was not the same at all. And I don’t seek infidelity for myself as a remedy as Howard suggests. How is that an improvement? I would not want to be united to somebody who seeks multiple partners. I wouldn’t blame the other women. He’s the one who is a selfish user with an over-inflated ego. Drawn sword, my eye. I wasn’t born yesterday.
Look, I agree that the church can’t refute it or at least that they don’t want to, specifically for the 3 reasons that I listed in the essay. But like MH, I don’t think it’s necessary to bolster JS by claiming that “plural marriage” (let’s call a spade a spade, polygyny) is divine and a core part of the faith. The CoC got out of it. I’d love to see us with an exit strategy as well.
Likewise, I don’t understand how this was part of the restoration of things. It was an ancient cultural practice, never instituted by God. This Law of Sarah nonsense came out of left field. Looks like JS wasn’t the last theological innovator we’ve had. Somebody on the essay committee is also good at religious invention.
hawkgrrl (94):”The historical record is quite clear that the men involved in polygamy usually took great pleasure in it, especially in adding new young wives.”
Ok, I can kinda accept your saying almost all women hated it, but I’d really like to see you produce some records from men saying “W00t! I get to screw a pretty young girl!” Much of what we have is men being extremely averse to it.
hawkgrrrl,
I agree that so-called law of Sarah is an insult to all women and any person who can think on their own. Section 132 is a false gospel that Paul warned about: http://gregstocks.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/dc-section-132-is-an-other-gospel/
God loves all His children equally and would never institute polygamy which treats women like property and is so demeaning to them.
Brigham Young is the most obvious example, Frank, since he didn’t have to lie about it, living outside the borders of the US. He spoke often of his virility and desirability to the young women. It’s fairly sickening. I suggest you read In Sacred Loneliness for the most accurate historical picture, but here are a few quotes that illustrate why men favored it:
Tawny beauties: “… Brigham now teaches that ‘the way God has revealed for the purification of the Indians, and making them “a white and delightsome people,” as Joseph prophesied, is by us taking the Indian squaws for wives!!’ Accordingly several of these tawny beauties have been already ‘sealed’ to some of the Mormon authorities.”
– John Hyde, Jr.
More power and glory: “We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time… And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives, all eating occasionally at the same table, and visiting one another, and conversing about their numerous children and their kingdoms. Oh, ye delicate ladies of Christendom, how can you endure such a scene as this?… If you do not want your morals corrupted, and your delicate ears shocked, and your pious modesty put to the blush by the society of Polygamists and their wives, do not venture near the New Earth; for polygamists will be honored there, and will be among the chief rules in that Kingdom.”
– Apostle Orson Pratt
“Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and Kingdom after Kingdom, and reign triumphantly.”
– Prophet Brigham Young
Pick of the women: “Kimball always kept an eye out for romance. ‘Brethren,’ he instructed some departing missionaries, ‘I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.”
– Stanley P. Hirshon’s biography of Brigham Young
Lack of awareness of impacts to women: “A person brought up in a polygamist household… told this story: ‘There is one real tragedy in polygamy that I can remember. One evening a man brought home a second wife. It was winter and the first wife was very upset. That night she climbed onto the roof and froze to death.’”
– Kimball Young
“Mr. W.: ‘Joseph kept eight girls in his house, calling them his “daughters.” Emma threatened that she would leave the house, and Joseph told her, “All right, you can go.” She went, but when Joseph reflected that such a scandal would hurt his prophetic dignity, he followed his wife and brought her back. But the eight “daughters” had to leave the house.’”
– Dr. W. Wyl
“… Young often joked about his wives. ‘Tell the Gentiles,’ he once observed, ‘I do not know half of them [his wives] when I see them.’ Laer, asked the usual question by a Gentile governor of Utah, Young answered: ‘I don’t know myself! I never refuse to marry any respectable woman who asks me, and it is often the case that I separate from the woman at the marriage alter, never to meet her again to know her. My children I keep track of, however. I have fifty-seven now living, and have lost three.’”
– Stanley P. Hirshon (ibid)
Bolstering the virility of the men: “Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congregation that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can carry any of the young men.”
– Prophet Brigham Young
“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business… I do not know what we should do if we had only one wife apiece.”
– Apostle Heber C. Kimball
“We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they envy our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow minded, pinch-backed race of man, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They aught to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices.”
– Prophet George A. Smith
Better offspring: “[Children of polygamists] besides being equally as bright and brighter intellectually, are much more healthy and strong.”
– Apostle George Q. Cannon
“Talk about polygamy! There is no true philosopher on the face of the earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the raising of healthy, robust children!”
– Prophet Brigham Young
Belief it was more like Jesus: “The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.’”
– Apostle Jebediah M. Grant
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”
– Prophet Brigham Young
Hawk, you said “I don’t think it’s necessary to bolster JS by claiming that “plural marriage” (let’s call a spade a spade, polygyny) is divine and a core part of the faith. The CoC got out of it. I’d love to see us with an exit strategy as well.”
As for false dichotomies, I think this is yours. Is it impossible for God to command Joseph to institute polygamy without it being a core part of the faith? I find it a lot easier to believe that God commanded and Joseph obeyed without really understanding or knowing exactly how, than to believe God allowed the prophet of the last dispensation to institute plural marriage in His name against His will.
Liberal Mormons’ greatest fear is that God may actually have done something or required something they feel is morally wrong — in other words, that God’s morality doesn’t agree with theirs. Conservative Mormons’ greatest fear is that something they’ve accepted as coming from God and possibly sacrificed dearly to uphold might actually not be from God at all.
You can quote me on that, by the way. I think it colors quite a few conservative-liberal arguments.
“Liberal Mormons’ greatest fear is that God may actually have done something or required something they feel is morally wrong — in other words, that God’s morality doesn’t agree with theirs. Conservative Mormons’ greatest fear is that something they’ve accepted as coming from God and possibly sacrificed dearly to uphold might actually not be from God at all.”
Excellent quote Martin, and one which describes my own sentiments on polygamy. As hard as it is to refrain from judgement, I still think it is still the best option. Those who need to condemn it in order to reconcile their own moral indignation with the church, will have to condemn it. Those who need to defend it in order to reconcile their need for a perfect church will have to defend it. But best of all is to be able to refrain from judgement, accepting it as a strange and mysterious event which the Lord commanded, allowed, or tolerated somehow.
All this bantering back and forth about how the once practice of PLURAL MARRIAGE (yes, it’s engaging in double-speak, but there is a point to use the term PM instead of “Polygamy”) being harmful to the women involved or not seems to miss one point: the women entered into it VOLUNTARILY, AFAIK. The purpose was to raise a righteous seed, none other. I recall one “Insti-Toot” teacher at Fresno State pointing out how so many of the then GA’s (ca. 1980) were descended from these 19th-century polygamous marriages. Both men and women in those times could (1) have faith in the Lord’s promises w/o getting all snarky and cynical like so many (myself included) in this forum; and (2) delay gratification and wait for the long-term payoff.
Why WOULD I care about the “woman’s” POV, considering that as Hawk presents it, it seems that she’s styled some LDS-proto-Feminist views of ‘womyn’ as VICTIMS, never mind their actual advantages, power, and ability to freely make life choices. That’s the trouble with most ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ thinking…assuming that entire class of “Hew-Mon” beings, whether by gender (AFAIK, limiting it to two choices in spite of the LGBT weirdness “a goin-on in the Wide, Wide, World of Sports, thank you, late Slim Pickens from “Blazing Saddles”), or races (generally thought of as THREE choices but in reality far more ‘diverse’ and murky once the racial issues are seriously explored), or ‘ethnicity’ (often self-defined), or ‘religion’ (closely related to the prior), are lumped as VICTIMS.
The only female views I “care” about are those of my beloved “Snips”, my sisters, my daughters and daughter-in-law, and my granddaughters. And the latter definitely make their views known to Grandpa!
According to Hawk’s view, if one throws away the notion that PM was instituted ca. 1836-1844 via revelation through Joseph Smith and revoked by Wilford Woodruff (1890) or Joseph F. Smith (1904), then you’d assume that the whole ‘scam’ was just some cover for the “Good Ole’ Boyz” to get some cute honeys on the “side”, and have the audacity to be in their (legal) wife’s face about it! Sure, twice the “nookie”, but also twice the PMS! If it were me having to do that sort of tomfoolery at the time, I’d limit my ‘take’ to two, three, or six, but no mas! Simple logic: even divide Monday through Saturday. Sunday? REST. (and baseball, reading the sports page for the latest on the Cinncinati Red Stockings, at least from 1869 on…)
Douglas, I’m not even sure what you’re saying. That was clearly one too many O’Douls at lunch.
“I find it a lot easier to believe that God commanded and Joseph obeyed without really understanding or knowing exactly how, than to believe God allowed the prophet of the last dispensation to institute plural marriage in His name against His will.” And I find the latter easier to believe, although your view is in line with the essays. We’ll find out when we are dead, I suppose. If that’s required for celestial glory, I’m happy to go to a lower kingdom. I will be first in line to get out of there.
“How are we dealing with the “tough issues” when we don’t care how the ones who bear the larger burden are impacted?”
This I think is the error of the assumption of the author. She assumes that all women who lived in the 19th century with 19th century challenges will have the same response to plural marriage that she has in her 21st century life.
I have 6 female ancestors who entered plural marriages between the years 1859 and 1880 (and bunches who chose monogamy). Some in the Salt Lake area, some in hardscrabble southern Utah towns. One of the plurally married ones divorced her husband and remarried again, monogamously. One married her husband (his first marriage) on the same day her best friend did. One welcomed a widowed acquaintance as a sister-wife and two welcomed a single woman her own age after a dozen years of marriage. One married as a second wife and spent most of her married life raising children on her own in order to keep her husband out of jail and able to support his children as best he could.
I’ve read accounts written by those women and their daughters and their mothers of the feelings of all five and they are widely varied, from positive to perplexed, to hopeful, to angry to grateful.
So, I don’t believe that there is one female 19th century response to plural marriage But I do think that there is a tendency to discount as “unreal” or “coerced” any response that doesn’t jive with our own when we feel unrepresented, which the author seems to feel. And that discounting, I believe, is disrespectful to those differing responses.
There is no one single female response. It behooves us to allow credibility to all of the various responses of those women who tried to live a plural marriage more than a century ago.
whoops. I mean “the feelings of all six”
Douglas, that comment was disgusting. But at least you demonstrated that misogyny is not a problem that was solved by the end of polygamy.
Easy equation-never marry a man who embraces the principal of polygamy. He is stating his intention to be unfaithful to you.
handlewithcare – and what of the women who embrace it? Do they just have poor self esteem and “obviously” require counseling?
hawkgrrl – thanks (I guess) for the quotes. I don’t know why I keep having hope there will be some group without obvious misogyny oozing out. I know there are stories and quotes thatsdcfrtvcx
(co’t’d) on the good side, but they’re not as well disseminated.
Douglas, this is not just a liberal or progressive issue. I’m a conservative, and I (and many other mainstream Mormon women) really struggle with the idea of polygamy. Hawk is not incorrect in how she categorizes many female responses to the subject. I believe that among the younger generations you get a more vehement response (conservative or liberal), as we didn’t grow up hearing anything about Joseph’s polygamy (certainly not from any conservative sources, FLDS excepted), and we don’t even hear about the celestial polygamy very much in official sources.
Mary B, we aren’t trying to discount the women in the past who found polygamy a positive experience. The public image that the church back in the 19th century really tried to present was that women were happy in polygamy. I had ancestors (children of polygamists) who presented that view when they were on missions in the eastern US at the turn of the century. The public image gets pulled into question when we start reading the personal stories in the diaries — were *all* women really as happy as the official statements suggested? It’s the discrepancies that are disconcerting, especially when husbands brought home 2nd wives to women who never agreed to be in polygamous marriages. Women who chose to stick it out (or enter into other polygamous marriages) because of their faith and testimonies in the church are examples to descendants who are active in the church. It’s a lot like the Martin-Willey handcart companies — sure they are powerful examples of faith, and we even have teenagers replicate their path to get a sense of their sacrifice, but we don’t do those treks in the dead of winter in Wyoming because everyone understands it would be completely idiotic. We can appreciate the sacrifices of our ancestors without wanting to recreate them in our own lives.
“We can appreciate the sacrifices of our ancestors without wanting to recreate them in our own lives.” Exactly! Of course, there are plenty of people who like to do ‘the trek’ for that very reason. I’m not one of them. Also I have no pioneer ancestors.
Mary Ann,
In case it wasn’t clear, all of the accounts I read about my own six ancestors were written non-public, private diaries, notes or accounts that the women wrote at home for their own purposes. They were not public declarations or documents.
I think your Martin Handcart company analogy doesn’t quite work. Just as we do not assume that handcart pioneers had miserably difficult experiences the way the Wiley, Martin and Hunt (a wagon company that was also involved) companies did, we should not assume that all polygamous family experiences were miserable because some of them were.
I agree that some of them were. My ancestor who divorced her first husband was in a miserable marriage. But I think that your keen aversion to polygamy is coloring your response to the articles you refer to and making it hard for you to accept as legitimate other people’s experiences that do not fit your take on it.
If we call for “women’s perspective” on the issue we must welcome as legitimate and valuable all of their experiences and their various personal writings on the subject, and not discount as unreal window dressing the ones that do not fit our biases on the topic.
Personally, I cannot say whether the sources that influenced the commencement of the practice of polygamy instituted by Joseph Smith were clearly divine, cultural, psychological, or a combination of those or something else. I am too far removed from that time and place to feel like I have enough information to be able to make that judgment.
My point is not whether or not it was inspired or whether or not it was based upon any number of possible biblical traditions or “rules” that are suggested in discussions of the topic. I am not in a position, over a hundred years later, to declare that definitively. And I do not think that such is the crux of this conversation.
But I do know from the private words written by my female ancestors, polygamous and monogamous, that the experiences of polygamous families and polygamous husbands and wives were as widely varied and encompassed a similar wide range of struggles and smooth sailing, misery and joys as the monogamous ones, sometimes for the same reasons and sometimes for different ones and always due to the nature of the individuals involved and the challenges of mortal life in general.
And it behooves us as students of history to value all their words about their experiences within a marriage as authentic, honest and valuable, whether or not they are similar to each other, and in spite of our own personal responses to the choices they made or how we imagine we would respond if we were in their shoes.
Mary B. – You’re writing about how to view the past. What is so objectionable about the essays is that they affirm the “fact” that God commanded polygamy…and He could do it again. I think it borders on mental cruelty, and that an increasing number of women are seeing it that way and giving up the self-recrimination for selfishness that the church tacitly encouraged for so long.
Anon: “What is so objectionable about the essays is that they affirm the “fact” that God commanded polygamy…and He could do it again.”
This. Thank you.
So, it’s taken me a while to comment.
Historically, it seems these kind of ructions can be par for the course in religious movements. The whole 16th century millenarian Anabaptist stuff (Jan Matthys, Jan Bockelson): all things in common, impending millenial reign, New Jerusalem & Zion, polygamy, prophet as king, 12 elders… all that was seen then in Europe too. Reading about it, it sounds eerily familiar. And didn’t end well.
Will we at some point be able to say these things were an aberration?
I don’t put myself forward as an expert on LDS polygyny, nor do I play one on TV. But I do read widely, and I have yet to read any private account by any female participant who would not have chosen monogamy had she been given the choice.
Women made do, they sucked it up, they write that they struggled with the principle but accepted it as the price of faith and membership and testimony and they learned to live with it. None of them write that they liked it or preferred it to a monogamous union. There is a difference. That’s not “projecting our own feelings onto 19th century sisters,” it’s taking them at their own words.
The question of whether or not it was divinely inspired is a separate one, and as is usual in these discussions, the two issues have gotten all jumbled up. The Church as an institution, depending as it does on the notion of divine leadership through modern prophets, has a strong interest in presenting it as the (limited, special-case) will of God for his people at that time and place. Others, with some good reasons which go beyond the strictly emotional, disagree. In any case, it does little good and adds little to our understanding to muddle things up. In short:
Did women like and enjoy it? Clearly, no.
Did they support it and live it? In many/most cases, yes.
Was it divinely inspired? The jury is, honestly, still out.
Will we do it again? La-la-la, I can’t hear you, I have a meeting I gotta go. 🙂 [OHECKNO]
Mary B, the reason I chose that analogy is that when we have lessons about Mormon Pioneers, we inevitably talk about the Martin & Willie (and Hunt) handcart companies. Why is that? You are correct, the vast majority of pioneers didn’t suffer the deprivations these saints suffered, and the majority of pioneers didn’t even travel by handcart. So why do we emphasize this story of pioneers who sacrificed everything in a journey that typically didn’t require that much sacrifice? We talk about it so that we can get to this quote by Francis Webster, as related by William R. Palmer many decades later, “I ask you to stop this criticism. You are discussing a matter you know nothing about. Cold historic facts mean nothing here, for they give no proper interpretation of the questions involved. Mistake to send the Handcart Company out so late in the season? Yes! But I was in that company and my wife was in it, and Sister Nellie Unthank whom you have cited here was there, too. We suffered beyond anything you can imagine and many died of exposure and starvation, but did you ever hear a survivor of that company utter a word of criticism? Every one of us came through with the absolute knowledge that God lives for we became acquainted with Him in our extremities!”
What is the lesson? It’s that even though mistakes are made, we are not allowed to criticize. Even if people are required to sacrifice more than others, if just one of them says that their faith was strengthened by the experience then *everyone’s* sacrifice was worth it. It doesn’t matter that there were members of the Martin and Willie Handcart companies who eventually left the church — we ignore those people. This is the lesson we have ingrained in us as youth. When you sacrifice whatever your leaders ask you to, your faith will increase because of it, and if it doesn’t, then you need to pray harder. Any complaint is speaking against the Lord’s anointed. That is the message that good Mormons understand, and that is precisely why I am cautious at taking these pioneer women at their word. If my close female relatives *now* are hesitant to suggest that any of our ancestors may not have embraced polygamy fully in fear of making them look less faithful, what can I expect of those ladies themselves? When I know that many felt their acceptance of polygamy was the determining factor in their receiving exaltation in the hereafter, why would I expect them to say *anything* negative? Some people suggest that I think these women were weak-willed if they spoke against their feelings, but you misunderstand. In our culture we teach that true disciples suck up personal doubts and personal difficulties and sacrifice everything for the kingdom. These women lied to mobsters to protect the leaders. These women lied to government agents to protect the leaders. Many of these faithful women felt that they had to do whatever was necessary to protect the church and its divinely inspired leaders. Defending the church’s position no matter the cost was a sign to them of strength and faithfulness, not weakness.
“Will we at some point be able to say these things were an aberration?’
when the number of years the Church practiced polygamy is well outnumbered by the years the Church is in existence. Like in 100 years or so?
” If that’s required for celestial glory, I’m happy to go to a lower kingdom. ”
Done. 🙂
” If that’s required for celestial glory, I’m happy to go to a lower kingdom. ”
If God is malicious enough to force people remain in polygamy to achieve the highest kingdom, He’s malicious enough to put you and your SO (and anyone you ever knew) on opposite sides of the kingdom, just two people amoungst trillions.
What a great post and great thread to read.
Law of Sarah = Unrighteous Dominion. Period.
#90. Martin…essays on the priesthood ban acknowledge racism by prophets, and point out they were products of the society they grew up in. Too bad the essay on polygamy falls short to acknowledge polygamy as sexist by past prophets.
Also, I just got done clicking thumbs up on every Hawkgrrrl post in this thread.
Sealings aren’t always “marriages”. We are sealed to our children , aunts, uncles, etc,and there is no sex. Isn’t it possible that JS was sealing people to himself because he was creating an eternal family made up of people he was close to here and wanted the bond to continue into eternity? He would be sealed to the men as well their wives and the 14 year old girl’s parents as well as her. None of us knew JS personally to correctly judge him and he isn’t here to explain for himself. He seemed a good person, raised by moral parents. His background would suggest he’d be someone with a healthy fear of God and who would not think he could engage in immorality and get away with it.
I know the church website uses the word “marriage” but for all we know, it should read “sealing”.
I am a convert of 40 years now. I am a better person because I have done my best to follow
the tenents of this faith. Our religion is not an easy one to live. It requires us to nearly be perfect.
I was a good person but living it has made me better. I know enough to know that I do not know all things as they really are, only as things appear to be. All I can do is live my life with the Savior as my example and have the trust and faith that God will deal with the rest. If someone or something is wrong, God will correct it and us at the end of this world.
Mem,I acknowledge your good will and intentions, but as I understand it, shockingly Joseph was sealed to these women without their husband’s involvement in the sealing, so these women were sealed to him without the husbands also being sealed-which would have been a bit messy anyhow. But actually it’s not Joseph’s behaviour that troubles me, I can see it as an honest effort to try to fulfill a principal. It’s Brigham’s embracing and use of the principal to justify a life of excess and playing favourites. I can’t make any sense of that, or it’s benificence in the lives of any involved.
I’m happy to hear of any woman who enjoyed and delighted in living in a polygamous marriage or was able to make sense of the relational chaos that seems apparent would ensue. If anyone can enlighten me I’d consider it a favour. And no-one seems to be able to throw any light on how they managed their sexual relationships-not a prurient interest but a very real issue.
I’ll admit that there have been times in my 35 year marriage when polygyny sounded pretty good. Without exception, they have been when I’ve been so fed up with my husband’s selfish arrogance that I’d be happy to let someone else deal with him, and be done with him myself. Fortunately, he’s usually a sweetheart, so we stick to our monogamous ways.
Kind of interesting that monogamy with a good guy is sweet, but polygyny would make life tolerable with a jerk.
Handlewithcare–If those married women were already married to their husbands,it only follows that JS knows he’s sealed to those men as well. None of us likes the idea of polygamy. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t wonder about the questions you pose. I think it’s only human nature for people to favor certain ones over others when they are not their children and they even do it with their own children. Some people are more difficult to live with than others. Jacob favored Rachel and labored for her 7 years. I’ll bet Leah was really hurt her whole life. But that’s the problem–it isn’t natural to feel chemistry with every member of the opposite sex. At least in this life.
Something we have to consider here apart from our times, was how harsh life was in pioneer days.
People were consumed with just surviving. Some of the women may have just been grateful to have a roof over their head and food. And surely all those women were not head over heels in love with Brigham Young and hurt every time he smiled at the other wife. He was a rough guy. Did these guys even bathe daily?–I doubt it. The Lord needed someone like him to get the Saints across the plains to Utah. All these guys were ‘rough stones rolling’. I expect they’d need tenderness counseling before they could even get a date today.
P.S. And you know how guys talk trying to impress other guys? BY might have been a lot of talk as he had to defend that lifestyle–24/7 to everyone. I’m not saying that’s right. I am saying he was a rough man.
mem – “None of us likes the idea of polygamy.”
Except God? That’s what the essay seems to say.
mem- I don’t mean that at all as a dig against you.
Anon–non taken! And I wish He didn’t like it.
mem: As to the question whether he slept with the women he was sealed to, there is sufficient evidence that in many cases he did:
– Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph’s wife “in very deed.” (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)
– In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)
– Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she “roomed” with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had “carnal intercourse” with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)
joseph smithIn total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.
– Joseph Smith’s personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith’s first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
William Clayton’s journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)
– Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith’s son: “Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.”” (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)
And are these the women who married to other men at the time JS did this?
I mean, were these the married women he was sealed who already had husbands still living?
Wow. Why on earth would a stake president tell a son something like that about his father, as it might be extremely upsetting to him? I don’t know enough about Eliza R. Snow but I’m not certain a lady would even make a remark like that in “mixed company’ back then. My mother was born in 1920 and there were certain things considered private that she would never say aloud with a man present.
I have a hard time imagining the men in my ward asking a woman that question today! lol
And does anyone know why Eliza R. Snow was married to both JS and BY ?Was it just for time to BY?Did she have children by BY?
She did not have any children with either husband. I believe that BY was just for time- it was a Levirate thing. Joseph’s wives were divided up after the martyrdom so that Kimball, Young and other prominent leaders could ‘raise up seed’ unto Joseph.
Looking into this, JS wives most seem sealed to him a year or two before his death. They were varying ages which suggests to me that he wasn’t marrying randomly. Regardless of wives ages,
they and all of us lived premortally and had relationships established there–many assigned coming through family lines here in mortality. It is very possible that JS was commanded to seal those he knew premortally to him so that his eternal family would be done before he died. That would also explain the reason for taking the very young wives. If they belonged together in some familial relationship prior to this life, then it would not matter here what ages those female spirits were –just that they be sealed together. Having personally experienced what it’s like to recognize someone in mortality that I know I knew in the pre mortal world, I understand if he felt a distinct kinship with them that he did not feel with others. It’s interesting that before the marriage or sealing took place, that the females were upset by the thought of this possibly being immoral but that only lasted 24 hours and they prayed and understanding came. Then they were happy to be sealed to him and commented that their eternity felt incredibly blessed and joyful. It is related that he told one of them that she had always been his even though she’d be married in this life to another husband. If you have known someone premortally and meet them here, somehow you recognize them and know they are yours no matter what their familial ties are here for time or how old or young they happen to be at the time. We spent more time in the pre mortal world with people there and will after this life than we do here in this life. Relationships are already known but we
have no memory of it here.
mem: “Looking into this, JS wives most seem sealed to him a year or two before his death.” Or his engagement in polygamy was a direct contributing factor to his death. When it was published that he was engaged in polygamy, he denied it and destroyed the press, and destroying the press got him arrested, and while arrested, he was killed by an angry mob.
Hawkgrrrl, I’ve always thought it would kill me to have to live a life of polygamy.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
We invite you to join the discussion regarding the LDS theology of plural marriage over at thewonderwomen.squarespace.com headed by two faithful LDS women who feel it is a principle about, because of and FOR women. Don’t believe us? Come and find out. You might like to start with the post “Forbidden Fruit, Hagars in the Hereafter, Mandrakes and Motherhood”
https://thewonderwomen.squarespace.com/blog/2014/12/27/the-test-of-sarah-and-rachel