- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here’s another article from the same publication as in the OP. “No, Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage”I haven’t read it carefully, but just nudging the thread back towards the OP. Here’s a quick quote:
Quote:Here’s the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.
This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life’s most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.
He seems to be saying there won’t be any legalized polygamy in the west because we should be able to plainly see that it’s bad for everyone involved. What a concept.
If a polygamy case wends its way to high courts, will the church’s comment be that polygamy is fine, just not now?
I realize I’m being snarky. I understand the respect and connection we have to polygamous ancestors, but I’m so frustrated that we’ve put ourselves in this position. We just had a chance to distance ourselves (essays) and squandered it.
Quote:Ann wrote: I realize I’m being snarky. I understand the respect and connection we have to polygamous ancestors, but I’m so frustrated that we’ve put ourselves in this position. We just had a chance to distance ourselves (essays) and squandered it.
I do not have respect and connection to my polygamous ancestors. I think they made horrible choices. The more I read about the polygamist men who were my ancestors, the less respect I have for them. Marriage certificates were issued years after the supposed marriages. (Local bishops would backdate marriage certificates.) Sometimes women were married to what they thought was a single man. They were then brought west, They arrived at their new husband’s home and discovered the rest of the wives. There was all kinds of crazy going on. The women were too often treated like commodities. Men wheeled and dealed and all but traded for women.
The church has tried to shine it up really well. But there are some things that just don’t shine. Polygamy is on that list.
amateurparent wrote:Quote:Ann wrote: I realize I’m being snarky. I understand the respect and connection we have to polygamous ancestors, but I’m so frustrated that we’ve put ourselves in this position. We just had a chance to distance ourselves (essays) and squandered it.
I do not have respect and connection to my polygamous ancestors. I think they made horrible choices. The more I read about the polygamist men who were my ancestors, the less respect I have for them. Marriage certificates were issued years after the supposed marriages. (Local bishops would backdate marriage certificates.) Sometimes women were married to what they thought was a single man. They were then brought west, They arrived at their new husband’s home and discovered the rest of the wives. There was all kinds of crazy going on. The women were too often treated like commodities. Men wheeled and dealed and all but traded for women.
The church has tried to shine it up really well. But there are some things that just don’t shine. Polygamy is on that list.
I don’t come from pioneer stock and I have been wondering lately if some are still defending polygamy and the subconscious reason is they don’t want to be saying their ancestors did something wrong. That may be true, but you are proving it isn’t universal. My wife has polygamist ancestors and she does seem to be a bit proud of it.LookingHard: I put my polygamist ancestors on the Bat _ _ _ _ crazy list.
amateurparent wrote:LookingHard:
I put my polygamist ancestors on the Bat _ _ _ _ crazy list.
Batman_Crazy?AP, you’re undoing two years of free StayLDS therapy for me. 🙂 But, yeah, the horror stories greatly outnumber the ones they try to do a more positive PBS-type treatment of.I’m trying to say goodbye to the water under the bridge. What I can’t say hello to is a future with my children and grandchildren still being taught that their loving Heavenly Father commanded what happened and could command it again. The essays doubled down, and that is the implication in them.
Interesting side note – google “canada barbaric cultural practices” (that’s their term in the legislation) for recent news about legislation there. In my quick skimming I’m not seeing them making connections between gay marriage rights and polygamy. But the politics of it in the U.S. will be different, I assume, because our polygamists are born and bred here.
When President Hinckley told Mike Wallace something to the effect of polygamists having “nothing whatsoever to do with us,” he had to know that wasn’t really true. But I think he wanted it to be true, and he would have done something to crowbar us out of the past had he lived longer. I’ve no idea if there is such a person in leadership now.
LookingHard wrote:I don’t come from pioneer stock and I have been wondering lately if some are still defending polygamy and the subconscious reason is they don’t want to be saying their ancestors did something wrong. That may be true, but you are proving it isn’t universal. My wife has polygamist ancestors and she does seem to be a bit proud of it.
I think you have nailed part of the “problem.” Many (at one time not too long ago almost all) of the top leadership of the church have polygamist ancestors. I think it’s hard for them to try to portray the polished image of the church when they might know some of the part underneath that’s not so polished and pretty – a cognitive dissonance of their own, if you will.
amateurparent wrote:Quote:Ann wrote: I realize I’m being snarky. I understand the respect and connection we have to polygamous ancestors, but I’m so frustrated that we’ve put ourselves in this position. We just had a chance to distance ourselves (essays) and squandered it.
I do not have respect and connection to my polygamous ancestors. I think they made horrible choices. The more I read about the polygamist men who were my ancestors, the less respect I have for them. Marriage certificates were issued years after the supposed marriages. (Local bishops would backdate marriage certificates.) Sometimes women were married to what they thought was a single man. They were then brought west, They arrived at their new husband’s home and discovered the rest of the wives. There was all kinds of crazy going on. The women were too often treated like commodities. Men wheeled and dealed and all but traded for women.
The church has tried to shine it up really well. But there are some things that just don’t shine. Polygamy is on that list.
Some people have ancestors that owned slaves. I’m sure they’ve struggled with sins of the father in a similar fashion.
When compared to polygamy it’s easier to be completely ignorant of whether or not an ancestor owned a slave. I’ve also got to think that an ancestor owning a slave is much more taboo so people don’t go digging. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
LookingHard wrote:I don’t come from pioneer stock and I have been wondering lately if some are still defending polygamy and the subconscious reason is they don’t want to be saying their ancestors did something wrong. That may be true, but you are proving it isn’t universal. My wife has polygamist ancestors and she does seem to be a bit proud of it.
Care to sing a few bars of “They, the Builders of the Nation” with me? The pioneers are rockstars, regular LDS Bill Braskys. Being proud of polygamist ancestors might be a shortcut to being proud of one’s Mormon stock. If you have polygamist ancestors everyone knows you go waaaaay back and that your family’s commitment to the church is unquestionable. It might be more of a way of attaching oneself to Mormon legend than attaching oneself to the practice of polygamy.
I know this is a delicate subject for people with polygamous ancestors. I don’t mean to offend.
I have to relate a real situation that really happened here in the east not all that long ago. I was sitting in a ward council discussing the upcoming Pioneer Day activity. Frankly most of us didn’t care one way or the other, let’s do a picnic and get on with it. A brave soul, who had grown up in the church but in the east, ventured to voice that opinion – he thought it was fine to honor the pioneers for their sacrifice and courage but the day itself was not a big deal to him. Another member of the council then said he was a Son of the Utah Pioneers and it did matter to him and he did care (he felt we weren’t doing enough of a celebration). A sister on the council also piped up and said she was a Daughter of the Utah Pioneers (I didn’t know either of these existed) and she also cared and (with a small tear in her eye, of course) admonished the council. The man then added something to the effect of “well my ancestors crossed the plains with Brigham Young” (apparently knowing hers didn’t). The bishop broke it up with a jesting (but not really) “Let’s not try to one up each other and decide what we’re going to do for an activity so we can do other things.” Undoubtedly both of those individuals have polygamist ancestors and both were advocates of doing much more than a picnic to celebrate the day. So, yes, I do believe it’s hard for those with that history to try to believe that their ancestors were anything less the than virtuous, scrubbed stories we here.
(FWIW, I still don’t think the rest of us cared all that much, a picnic it was with the promise to do more the following year – which didn’t happen as I recall.)
My family goes waaaay back in the church on my mother’s side. Yes .. Polygamy. DH’s parents were converts. He feels that my rejection of polygamy rejects everything the church ever stood for and rejects all ancestry. I feel like it is more nuanced than that. For me, I am comfortable rejecting polygamy without rejecting everything else my ancestors did or stood for. I see it as one aspect of life that they got wrong. BTW, my father’s side of the family fought in the civil war on the confederate side. Yes, they owned slaves. Their cemetery markers proudly list their confederate units and every battle they fought it.
Outside of the church, people are more horrified to find that I am a descendant of polygamy than they are to find out my ancestors owned slaves. Growing up in LDS culture, I assumed others would view it as a positive .. Or at least a neutral point. Nope. Horrified.
As an LDS woman, I am tired of the endless discussions in church about polygamy. The church excommunicates anyone who practices it, yet, it is still a huge topic of conversation.
The church came out with the WOW. Drinking is no longer acceptable. Imagine if we had SS lessons in which we discussed the history of different liquor companies, talked about their products, discussed to virtues of aged oak barrels vs other woods .. If we spent entire lessons on the best way to grow wine grapes and how to best brew beer.
If we had lessons that talked endlessly about how alcohol came about, and all the good it did for people, but then stated, BUT it isn’t allowed any more. That approach wouldn’t go over very well. It grooms people towards a familiarity and an acceptance of alcohol.
That is how polygamy is being treated in the church. As a woman, I am being told that I will become a commodity again at some point. And how come Polyandry isn’t mentioned? It should get as much airtime.
Yeah .. I REALLY get on my soap box with polygamy.
amateurparent wrote:And how come Polyandry isn’t mentioned? It should get as much airtime.
Here here…
Yep…this is one of the things that comes across misogynistic with regards to the “equality” that is touted so much, but when it comes right down to it…..?
I think I plug into polygamy back on my father’s side, but they left and went with the reorganized church, so they didn’t practice it at that point because it was a No-No for them.
amateurparent wrote:That is how polygamy is being treated in the church. As a woman, I am being told that I will become a commodity again at some point.
I didn’t want to think so, but the essays confirmed it. It’s offensive. And if that’s not what they intended, if they’d like to re-word it, then please make editing that essay a priority!For the record, my descendant-of-polygamists husband has never experienced non-Mormon revulsion. I’ve always assumed that non-LDS people expect it and are unfazed by it.
If there is a fight to legalize polygamy in the U.S., will opponents be able to paint women like Kody Brown’s wives as victims of a system that degrades women? Or will LDS opponents of legalization have to dig quickly into their own ancestors’ journals to prove it?
Ann wrote:amateurparent wrote:That is how polygamy is being treated in the church. As a woman, I am being told that I will become a commodity again at some point.
If there is a fight to legalize polygamy in the U.S., will opponents be able to paint women like Kody Brown’s wives as victims of a system that degrades women? Or will LDS opponents of legalization have to dig quickly into their own ancestors’ journals to prove it?
I believe if polygamy/polyandry was legalized today, it would be very different than it was 150 years ago. Women have a much bigger voice in today’s world. I believe that in today’s world, if it was legalized, it would be more about the choices of consenting adults. What really bothers me about the polygamy that was going on in the early days of the church is that women were treated more like a commodity. And, while there are always those who rush to defend it as some noble attempt to take care of widows and such, that just wasn’t the reality of it. Women had very little say in what was going to happen to them, in many cases. I think it would be very different in today’s world. Consent would play a much bigger role. Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT advocating for polygamy in any way!! I hate the thought of it. But, I do think that the world and culture that we live in today has evolved enough that polygamy could be very different than it was back then. Of course, you still hear of abuses in FLDS communities where women are treated much like a commodity and are afraid to leave. Legalizing it certainly wouldn’t do anything to help those women!
Women have the ability to decide when they get pregnant. That has been a game changer for society. It is changing the work place, it is changing education opportunities for women, it is changing relationship dynamics. It has changed how marriage is viewed within society. As a child, I remember articles in Readers Digest laying out the evils of The Pill. The Pill was supposed to bring about the fall of society. I don’t see those articles any longer. Contraception is no longer even part of the discussion — other than what type is best.
Even in LDS society, we used to talk about an LDS family of 8 kids, 5 years of wheat, and a van. The families are shrinking to 3-5 kids. Culturally, 8 is still an acceptable number, but 16 is not. While we talk of the glories of large families, the culture frowns on families that go past 8.
IMHO, If polygamy/polyandry comes back, it won’t be even superficially about children. It will be about love, intimacy, relationships, and power.
amateurparent wrote:The Pill was supposed to bring about the fall of society.
Good example of how the fear of the unknown makes us hold on to values from the past and preaching warning against change, when actually…the change leads to a better society.
The church preached against birth control for fear it would remove the sanctity of sex within marriage, or at least remove the natural consequences of it, and it would lead to epidemics.
And now…what does the church say about birth control? They say that individuals should decide what is best for them. Some mormons and some catholics (and others) may choose to not use it and believe if God wants them to have children, they should not prevent it. That’s great for those that choose that. But that is not the best standard for all of society, nor does it always lead to best results.
Why has the church changed the CHI about what bishops should tell members about birth control? Because time has shown it doesn’t destroy society, and that it helps many people with their specific circumstances and helps society in general. There are risks it can be done irresponsibly…but it does not NECESSARILY lead to irresponsibility.
I can see the parallel to change with marriage. Same sex marriage can work for people, and won’t destroy society or the institution of marriage. We just progress as a society to accept it and once the fears have been proven in time to be ill-founded or based on ignorance, fear-mongering dies down.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.