- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:
Am I wrong, or are there just two options? Either no one among the influential believes that a polygamy doctrine hurts women and girls, or they believe it does, but proceeded anyway.
Or that some “among the influential” believed that there are quite a number of doctrines that are painful, but that life, to a degree, is about dealing with pain / sacrifice. That general idea was FAR more common back in that time than it is now.
Or that people in the earlier times generally weren’t as aware of sexism, particularly with regard to marriage issues, as we are now. I think that is indisputable.
Or that many believed the “restoration of all things” had to include all things they read in the Bible, no matter how painful – and that actually was a common idea back then.
My own take, that I’ve believed for a long time:
The Restoration is a process, not an event (as President Uchtdorf said recently), and there will be bitter fruit of some kind in the vineyard until the very end that will need to be pruned right up until the very end – and that the bitter fruit is incorrect doctrine, NOT people. It includes people, since people are the ones who teach incorrect doctrine, but I love Jacob 5 specifically because I think it destroys the idea that everything taught in Church is the pure word and will of God.
People do the best they can to understand and live their lives according to the dictates of their own consciences, subject greatly to the prevailing ideas of their times. There was a LOT of stuff in the times of Joseph and Brigham that was radically progressive; there was a lot of stuff that wasn’t; there was some stuff that was traditional; there was some stuff that was regressive. I wish that wasn’t so, but, as a history teacher, I know it’s common to all ages and people.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear that I was meaning
today’sinfluential, and proceeding with the essay as written. I like to think we are in process, but the essay boomerangs us back to an event. I think this was a huge missed opportunity to say, or at least imply, many of the things you said. Instead, angel and flaming sword, etc.
nibbler wrote:It’s understandable that the missionaries don’t bring up things like polygamy because polygamy isn’t what today’s church is about. That said, I think they should be prepared to answer questions should the subject come up. If it’s important to the investigator it should be important for the church.
I really wonder how much help the essay is going to be to missionaries. In my opinion it puts them on a terrible footing if the investigator’s question is, “So…do Mormons believe that God
couldcommand polygamy again?” It doesn’t seem to me that the essay gives room for anything but a yes to that. It’s a shame, because I don’t think people would be that interested in the good, the bad and the ugly history if we weren’t keeping this little pilot light (“God’s standard is monogamy, except….”) burning. I don’t think it will turn people off because they think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that a modern, North American-based church would practice polygamy – more like they just won’t want to associate with one that says it could, hypothetically. Heber13 wrote:
It’s not just you, Ann. This is a subject that rubs me so wrong…I hate it. But looking at the history and accounts we have…it sounds like that was most of the early saints reactions as well. So…to see it being accepted by so many because of spiritual experiences despite their reaction towards it initially…it becomes an interesting topic to me on revelation, and church teachings, and what God asks of His children, or what people interpret from ancient scripture. It’s interesting, despite the practice being unacceptable to me.I think I would find it all much more interesting if the practice had just sort of bubbled up, gained momentum and so on. Then I’d be wondering what made it tick, but as it is, the pressure and coercion that made it all go takes a lot of the intrigue out of it.
I know I’m not alone, but sometimes I complain like I am.
🙂 Ann wrote:Heber13 wrote:
It’s not just you, Ann. This is a subject that rubs me so wrong…I hate it. But looking at the history and accounts we have…it sounds like that was most of the early saints reactions as well. So…to see it being accepted by so many because of spiritual experiences despite their reaction towards it initially…it becomes an interesting topic to me on revelation, and church teachings, and what God asks of His children, or what people interpret from ancient scripture. It’s interesting, despite the practice being unacceptable to me.I think I would find it all much more interesting if the practice had just sort of bubbled up, gained momentum and so on. Then I’d be wondering what made it tick, but as it is, the pressure and coercion that made it all go takes a lot of the intrigue out of it.
I know I’m not alone, but sometimes I complain like I am.
🙂 Dislosure: My world view does not accept the possibility of God commanding polygamy.
How then do I explain the spiritual experiences reported?
1) Spiritual experiences were more common back then. Church members spoke in tongues. People were having visions. Seeing miracles. All of this seems to be much more normal for the time period than it is today. The early church with its restorationist approach was a breeding ground for these types of experiences. Several times JS and others had to identify what was a spiritual experience from God and what was not (IOW Hyrum Page incident and others)
2) I wonder if 100 people put their minds to receiving a spiritual confirming experience, what percentage would be able to report that they had such an experience. In some degree it can be confirmation bias. You search your soul for signs that such and such is from God. You interpret anything found as divine confirmation.
3) Coercion. There seems to have been various levels of coercion used. Some examples that come to mind are as follows: A) Limited time offer. I remember that if one young lady did not consent by a certain time then the opportunity would be forever closed to her (along with her eternal salvation?)
Angel with the flaming Sword. Consenting to become a plural wife to JS might save HIM from being destroyed by the angel. C) Salvation of entire family riding on this. In some cases the entire family of the plural wife was promised eternal blessings. D) That they were destined for this. Some women apper to have been told that this was arranged in heaven before they were even born and that they already belonged to JS. I’m sure that there are other points of pressure and coercion that I am missing. The power imbalance between any young woman and JS is problematic.4) Many of the spiritual experience stories were told long after the fact once the saints were in Utah. 1 of the Q12 reported having seen the transfiguration of BY into JS who actually was not present at the meeting in question. I believe that this was reported in order to bloster BY’s claim for the presidency. Similarly, there would have been pressure to report initial repugnance but then some sort of divine manifestation that it was correct. If one of the apostles could lie about his whereabouts for the sake of the church, how much easier would it be to misrepresent the feelings and impressions felt years before on an individual’s heart. Such reporting would be an act of support and defense for the people and church that one loves and would be very understandable.
The essay itself points this out while making another point.
Quote:“They did not discuss their experiences publicly or in writing until after the Latter-day Saints had moved to Utah and Church leaders had publicly acknowledged the practice. The historical record of early plural marriage is therefore thin: few records of the time provide details, and later reminiscences are not always reliable.”
This actually bothers me because it seems like the essay is saying this to envelop the whole issue in a fog of mystery and then cherry pick and highlight some “reminiscences” over others.
Suffice it to say that I see significant motive for women that were once plural wives to JS and might now be plural wives to BY or Heber C. to report spiritual confirmation of polygamy.
All of this does not mean that God didn’t command polygamy or that God didn’t send spiritual confirmations to the participants. It merely expresses that there is at least enough evidence against as there might be for God sanctioned polygamy. I simply see a much more human, fallable, and messy narrative of events.
Just a point of clarification – an important one, IMO: The Church hadn’t denied or hidden polygamy in a LONG time. When we talk about this, at least we can be as factual as we want the Church to be.
Roy wrote:This actually bothers me because it seems like the essay is saying this to envelop the whole issue in a fog of mystery and then cherry pick and highlight some “reminiscences” over others.
yes…exactly…I was thinking it too, Roy. Actually, it doesn’t bother me though, it confirms to me what I think about often…people don’t use “Buffet Mormons” as a term of respect…but I see that we all do it…and the church does it. I guess I’ll be more inclined to stop cherry picking at the buffet table when the church leaders and lesson manuals do. I say that tongue and cheek…realistically, what I’m saying is it is of comfort to see we all do that cherry picking as we frame our opinions and beliefs.
Roy wrote:All of this does not mean that God didn’t command polygamy or that God didn’t send spiritual confirmations to the participants. It merely expresses that there is at least enough evidence against as there might be for God sanctioned polygamy. I simply see a much more human, fallable, and messy narrative of events.
I find most things I study deeply result the same way…human, fallable, and messy…since it all comes through mortals, many times very inspired and wise mortals. At some point, there is a choice on what we make of it all. Even having this essay on the church website…it will be read differently by different people, depending on their point of view. Again, another lesson for me on how interesting revelation and inspiration works, and I feel confident I’m allowed to think about polygamy the way I do.
I wouldn’t say “They admit that JS was threatened with a sword by an angle if he didn’t comply.” In my view, the article unfortunately gives credence to a supposed event for which there is only dubious evidence. Quote:In biblical times, the Lord commanded some of His people to practice plural marriage…
There is no proof of this. The message given to David by Nathan, “Thus saith the Lord…I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom” (2 Samuel 12) could mean the “master’s wives” were given in the same sense that the Lord sent quails to the Israelites, gave them a king, and acquiesced when Martin Harris wanted to borrow the BoM transcript. It could also mean the women were just placed in the care of the king’s household. Every other instance of polygamy in the OT indicates the people acted on their own.
Quote:..the Lord…did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment.
This is just sad. When God gives a commandment, he prepares a way for it to be accomplished. In the case of polygamy, Joseph sneaked around behind Emma’s back and took additional wives long before seeking her approval. The gospel of Christ “was not done in a corner,” but polygamy was done in deep, dark corners. He was sealed to women who already had a husband. I think God would have at least clarified that part. Joseph took wives and then allowed them to be kicked out of the house. He vehemently denied he was doing it and ended up dying as a result. I fail to see God’s hand in all that.
I could say a lot more, but I’ll just say that it’s best not to defend the past practice of plural marriage. Someday the church will have to backtrack on this. The more I learn, the uglier it gets, and a lot more will be revealed through the Joseph Smith Papers project.
Shawn wrote:I wouldn’t say “They admit that JS was threatened with a sword by an angle if he didn’t comply.” In my view, the article unfortunately gives credence to a supposed event for which there is only dubious evidence.
Bingo. Also, the Law of Sarah??? The supposed Law of Sarah that I think was literally invented for essay points to a real issue, that Sarah was the one who gave her handmaid to her husband to have a child, but D&C 132 says that a man has to ask his wife, and if she refuses, he can anyway and she will be destroyed. That’s not what happened with Sarah!
My overall view of modern polygamy is that it is an incorrect tradition of our fathers instituted because the philosophies of men got mingled with scripture – and, in this case, I exclusively use the male signifiers intentionally. I actually do believe there were some real benefits (and at least one important one), but they didn’t and don’t outweigh the negative results.
Old-Timer wrote:I actually do believe there were some real benefits (and at least one important one), but they didn’t and don’t outweigh the negative results.
Yes, and yes, I agree with both points. We can find a silver lining to the most unthinkable horrors, but that doesn’t mean if you could go back you wouldn’t stop the negative event from happening. I think the point that the church has yet to come to terms with is that a polygamous relationship is fundamentally abusive to women. I don’t choose those words lightly, a polygamous relationship is absent fidelity from the wives perspective because it is not and cannot be exclusive. I do acknowledge that it can work for some women – women who are extremely independent and honestly don’t care about having a close personal, exclusive, emotional/intimate relationship with their husband… or in short women who don’t want fidelity in their marriage.
Orson wrote:We can find a silver lining to the most unthinkable horrors, but that doesn’t mean if you could go back you wouldn’t stop the negative event from happening. I think the point that the church has yet to come to terms with is that a polygamous relationship is fundamentally abusive to women.
I agree, Orson. It can show the power of faith, I think. Because while most people taught about this practice in the early 1800s were shocked, some can look for those silver linings or faith on doctrines such as linking together families or promises of blessings in the next life to rationalize and try to live something in this life most people think are unacceptable. It still happens today with fundamentalists. We just look from the outside in to those communities, but I’m sure those that live it today still find ways to live happy and don’t view the abuse to women as a terrible thing, but focus on what they value in it and ignore the abuse it has.It is interesting what people will try to accept if you precede it with “God has commanded it”.
This is interesting:
Quote:
Hmmmmm. We know that white people marrying black was frowned upona littleShawn wrote:This is interesting:
Quote:
Hmmmmm. We know that white people marrying black was frowned upona littleI assume (?) they’re referring to things like Welsh marrying Danes. Maybe the ethnic mixing happened on an accelerated timeline in polygamous Utah, and that’s great, but…hardly a justification, like you say. I think they’re just pointing out some not-awful results of the practice.
I had an experience today that shook me a bit. I decided to drop this polygamy issue. I have been studying it feverishly and writing about it, with a plan to share my writings here and maybe elsewhere. I’m just quitting. It has been a canker on my soul. I’ll only say that a belief in polygamy, whether in the past or in the future, on earth or in heaven, is not required to have a testimony, be a faithful member of the church, follow Christ, have the Spirit, or go to heaven.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.