Polygamy- a beast that must be tamed.

Love is between two people. The core, the sacredness, the beauty, and of course, the passion, of physical and emotional intimacy radiates from the exclusiveness of the relationship. Love is symmetrical. It is one to one. Pure exclusiveness. The joining of two souls as one unit. Regardless of my standings with the church, I will always believe this. Not all relationships work out, but any relationship, any marriage, is originally based on the exclusive admiration and affection two people feel for one another. If you don’t like mushy stuff, I apologize. I believe in old fashioned courtly love and classical romanticism. I am disgusted with the lack of dignity, and acceptance of sexual promiscuity that goes on today. Every child deserves to be born to a mother and father who love each other and are exclusive with one another. Sadly, many births in the world aren’t this way anymore.

I couldn’t agree more. Even though I myself and no longer a believer, I think it is a wonderful thing for two people to be “mated for life” with no other partners. I caveat that by acknowledging that it’s not always so… it’s certainly better to divorce and remarry than to stay in a failed marriage, and I certainly mean no judgment on people who have a different opinion, but for me… my marriage and exclusive relationship with my wife is the best part of life… by a mile.

Now, polygamy… In my opinion, the Church’s stance – not facing it head on, as you say, results in polarizing views. On one end of the spectrum, JS was commanded by an angel with a sword that he should enter into plural marriage or be struck down. On the other end of the same spectrum, JS invented polygamy, first to cover up an affair, and once he got away with that, then to have God-sanctioned sex with anyone he desired. There is a vast empty space in the middle of the spectrum, left alone, because nobody has interest in it. Yet, I find the middle to be completely rational.

In my view, polygamy did not come from God. No way. It was too destructive to the church, to individuals and to families, to have been part of God’s plan. Fifty years after JS introduced polygamy, it was common for polygamous men to be detached from their families… They did their best to provide, but could offer little in terms of true familial relationships. These men were often lonely. Their wives typically raised the children on their own. The children of these families had a father, but not a dad, in the sense that we think of it. More like a close uncle than a dad. Eliza Partridge Lyman was plural wife of Amasa Lyman. In her writings she almost always referred to him as “Brother Lyman”, or occasionally as “my husband”, but never as “Amasa”. There is no way that God wants it to be that way… for his most faithful children…

But I also can’t see how JS could have been a man driven mainly by sex. He was just too substantial of a person to be nothing more than a con-man who built up the church as an elaborate way to bed as many girls as possible, which is the view of the super-critical. I believe JS was sincere in what he was doing, though his means were frequently not justified for his ends. JS was fully trusted as the Oracle of God by really good, strong, dedicated people. They weren’t wackos, like the Manson Family or Heaven’s Gate… These were first-rate characters, like the aforementioned Eliza Partridge and Amasa Lyman, or like John Taylor, Eliza R Snow, Joseph Fielding, Heber C Kimball, and Parley P. Pratt. Edward Partridge first kicked Oliver Cowdery and PP Pratt out of his Ohio store, telling them they were imposters, but later investigated, and came to the brink of being baptized. Before doing, so, however, he traveled the long distance to Palmyra to meet JS for himself. Satisfied, he finally joined. JS also did great things. The church he established was incredibly vital. Here was a farm-boy from an obscure location, yet by the time of his death at the age of 38, JS had established a flourishing city, defined a lasting religion, and had a multinational following. What he started continues to grow with adherents in places like Los Angeles (US, and Chile), Ghana, Hawaii, Miami, Montreal, Russia, India, The Congo, and Hong Kong. Compare JS’s success against James Strang, and you can see a marked difference. Finally, JS was dedicated to the cause, more than anything else. I often think of the translation of the Bible as an indicator. He worked diligently at that project for all of his tenure as the Prophet. If his heart weren’t really behind the cause, he would have no need to work on that effort at all. So, in other words, I think he was a man of too much consequence to explain polygamy as an elaborate hoax for sex.

I view polygamy as a legitimate attempt to connect with ancient practices, something that was important to JS and the early church. Also driving him… again, in my opinion, was the desire to connect inner-circle families, similar to royal alliance marriages. From God? No. From JS as an attempt to get closer to God? I think so. It was a big mistake, but I think it was a well-intended mistake that had disastrous consequences.

Here’s one possible thing you could read that I think deals with what I consider the most troubling aspect of this issue – the purportedly 11 women that Joseph Smith married that were currently married to other men.

This link is a FAIR article that examines this issue and looks at each of the marriages and gives apologetic answers (3 of them are there there isn’t sufficient documentation to prove that Joseph Smith married them so it only deals in detail with the other 8.)

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/katich-a-tale-of-two-marriage-systems.pdf

The author of this article does a pretty good job of looking at the facts head on and give thoughtful reasons why he feels it was acceptable – it doesn’t ring true to me, but perhaps it will you.

Also in case it is of interest to you here is an interesting site where you can learn details of each of Joseph Smith’s wives:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

(Someone could potentially consider the 2nd link to be anti-Mormon. IMO it is not, it just lists the wives and as much as possible an accurate portrayal of their situations.)

A third place you can spend some time is D&C 132 which is primarily discussing polygamy – you may be able to find the spiritual witness you are looking for by reviewing that.

Or you can just try to ignore the issue and have faith and put it on the shelf. I’ll warn you that researching it and learning about it isn’t likely to make you feel more comfortable about it, IMO. (For example when you look at the census data that their were more men than women in Utah in the 1800s you can no longer accept some of the more common rationals for it like “bringing up seed unto the Lord” or “men caring for all the extra women.”)

alaskaboy19,

FWIW, I feel much differently regarding the priesthood ban than I do about polygamy. The PB is something that is still used as a hammer by the anti crowd, but it’s a bit unfair to do so. Here’s why:

– It didn’t seem to exist in any form during the time of JS. In fact, when Clay County residents called for displaced Mormons to move on (to Far West), they used as part of their rationale, that Mormons were opposed to slavery.

– There is no revelation, scripture or even doctrinal statement that we can point to as the inception of the PB… We don’t know why it started. In fact, it’s a real mystery, because at the time of its development, there was no need for it. It didn’t seem to be an issue one way or the other for the church… it just appeared out of nowhere. Best guess is racism of individual church leaders at the time, that was simply projected onto the church practices. As terrible as that sounds, just keep in mind that racism was the norm in middle-19th-century America, rather than the exception.

– The church ended the practice 34 years ago, and since has completely relegated the practice as not a doctrine. I wish they had ended it a lot sooner, but they did at least get it right in the end.

As someone who remembers before the ban was lifted, I can tell you that it made little sense, and was an uncomfortable aspect of the church… and it did breed racism, even in those who wouldn’t have already had it. Black people were not simply barred from the priesthood, but also the temple. It was racist, arrogant, and un-benevolent.

As much flak as the church took for having the policy, they ALSO took flak, from the same people, for changing it. I specifically remember watching the news on TV on that day (not in Utah) and the anchor rolled her eyes as she announced that the church leaders had received a “revelation”. And that continues to be the approach of the church’s detractors. It’s apparently OK for them to call out the past racism of the church, but when you say that it was stopped in the 70’s they will complain loudly about how such a policy could even be changed… yet, that’s hypocritical… the US had institutionalized segregation until the 60’s… a segregated military in WWII… constitutionally-accepted slavery into the last half of the 19th century. At some point, you have to be allowed to move on from your history. As bad as the PB was, it wasn’t on the same level as legalized humans-as-property. Yet, the US has been allowed to move on from that disturbing chapter in its history, and the church should be allowed the same opportunity.

For me, what separates the priesthood ban from polygamy, is the historical and doctrinal distinction. From a history perspective, the church and polygamy are inseparable in the early days of the church, including under JS… The PB was not a major characteristic of the church, and likely went fairly unnoticed until well into the 20th century, when society as a whole was waking up from lots of programmatic racism. It was an increasingly big deal in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, but less so earlier. From a doctrinal point of view, polygamy is still fully a doctrine of the church (Sec 132), but the practice is suspended. The PB, on the other hand, has been effectively moved into the not-a-doctrine and never-a-doctrine category.

So, for me, I still see polygamy as the biggest elephant in the room, but I get bored with the priesthood ban, as an attack on the church. The latter is an embarrassing smear on the middle history of the church, but the church has successfully left it behind. The former continues to dog the church, and the church just can’t break free of it. I would love to see the church make an acknowledgment that polygamy is not a doctrine and that it was practiced by early leaders, as a sincere attempt to connect to the ancient, but that it wasn’t from God. I think that is the only way to get it off the top-of-the-list of reasons why people leave the church.

That’s why I liked McConkie’s “forget everything that has been said previously . . . We spoke from limited light and knowledge” statement shortly after the ban was lifted – and Elder Holland’s statement (I think it was him.) that those who speculated about why the ban was established were “spectacularly wrong”.

The “spectacularly wrong” comment is in one of the quotes in the post to which I linked in an earlier comment. (the middle one)

I’m not willing to throw out everything we got from Joseph’s various experiments with marriage structrues and condemn it in totality – even as I don’t think the final version under Brigham Young was ideal by any stretch, and even (especially) as I don’t accept at all the rhetoric that arose around it. Otoh, I am willing to throw out everything about the Priesthood ban – every stinking thing about it.

To me, that’s the difference. I have no problem believing one person can love more than one person deeply and equally – especially at different times in their lives, like with widows and widowers. Thus, I have no real problem with the concept of polygamous relationships after this life and, by extension, even in this life – as long as there is no abuse or deception involved and everything is with consenting adults. Since I don’t think think there will be sexual activity post-mortality, polygamy loses much of its ickiness factor for me in that realm. I also have a huge problem with people who accept gay marriage but not polygamous marriages (or polygynous marriages), given the rationalizations I’ve heard for that stance.

My takeaway is that marriage / love issues are tricky and complicated, while the race-based ban was not.

alaskaboy, fwiw:

1) I believe in a “council of the gods” structure in the next life that has nothing to do with “sharing one man” or sexual activity of any kind. Thus, again, the concept of polygamous relationships in the next life, for me, becomes nothing more than collaboration – not what happens in this life. I also loathe the idea of eternal gestation and earth-like birth in the here-after. That doesn’t make sense at all to me, and I think it’s a product of a time when no other way to create life was imaginable. That isn’t our time now.

2) I know people who truly have loved multiple wives, and I think we all can accept that simple fact when it comes to widows and widowers. I have a really hard time telling someone in that situation that they will have to “pick a wife” in the next life IF marriage is anything like what we experience here on earth. That, to me, is one definition of Hell. Therefore, as I said, I can’t condemn plural marriage in totality. It’s just too complicated, imo, to do that.

If there’s one thing I know about God, it’s that He doesn’t disrespect women like that.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding… Vanna, show Alaskaboy19 what he has won!

I totally agree with you. And funny thing… this is one front where I believe the “middle-way” mormons in our community, and others like it, can actually make inroads in the church. I believe the church is warming up to the idea that men and women should be equal partners, and that, I believe, is the most exciting current-event in the church. Just like the lifting of the PB, it’s lagging behind societal changes, but it is at least, and at last, happening. I hope for a day when church leaders embrace women… er… I mean… when the church accepts women as just as vital and important to the church as men. It’s happening now, and this is an area where we, if we stay in the church, can help shape the outcome. Alaskaboy19, if you do go on a mission, maybe this can be part of your self-purposed calling. I believe that a natural result of this shift will be the refuting of polygamy as a doctrine, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed to see it in the next few decades. Another natural result is the priesthood being given to women, but I don’t see that happening in my lifetime… rather, I think a logical progression for now is the separation of priesthood from leadership hierarchy. If it sounds far-fetched, all I can say is that if you sat in a church meeting in 1975 and said that the priesthood ban would soon be lifted and that before too long, we would have missionaries in Russia, or operate more than 50 temples world-wide before the turn of the century, you would have gotten some really odd looks.