New one to me: Joseph not really a Polygamy kind of guy?

[Anonymous]

Joseph really was a polygamy kind of guy. The whole “the angel made me do it, I didn’t really want to” argument doesn’t fly.

There might have been a few women who liked polygamy, but they are few. Polygamy treats women like property and relegates them to secondary (at best) status.

[Anonymous]

The “Brigham Young” started it thing is very common, especially amongst those who didn’t follow him to Utah.

Quote:

Polygamy treats women like property and relegates them to secondary (at best) status.

You’re confusing polygamy (many spouses) with polygyny (many wives). Polyandry (many husbands) has also been recorded in Mormonism.

I used to know a woman who had lived with two men. She wasn’t “legally and lawfully* married to them, but she was very much in charge, and that’s polygamy and polyandry. It all ended when one of the men tried to crash a helicopter. I am not making this up!

The property business comes primarily from the nature of marriage. Monogamy can treat women like property and secondary status. It can also be a source of abuse. Promiscuity and so called “sexual liberation” actually means that women (and men) lose out, the older and older they become.

Polygamy doesn’t actually have to mean reducing women to subervience.

* Legally and lawfully mean exactly the same thing…

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Polygamy doesn’t actually have to mean reducing women to subervience.

You are correct, it could men reducing men to subservience. Either way-bad.

[Anonymous]

rebeccad wrote:

Quote:

Polygamy doesn’t actually have to mean reducing women to subervience.

You are correct, it could men reducing men to subservience. Either way-bad.

Not really. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of being a “plural husband”, just as long as I, she and he(s) agree without being forced to. My main objection to it, would be in matters of hygiene, since if one of us had an STD of any description, then well… but even that can be resolved these days.

Modern society is utterly hypocritical about this. Film and rock stars sleep with a different person every day (maybe more), and this is tolerated, but if they married them all, then folk start crying “foul”.

I think it’s also a matter of numbers. I could tolerate being in a marriage of three or even four people, but not ten, twenty, thirty or forty.

[Anonymous]

My friend, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

On your example with movie stars, you are right, no one really cares about their love lives, well, people care but it has become so common, it doesn’t surprise anyone.

But there is something about marriage that is different, it is more than sexual. Marriage to me is about having one person to whom you are entirely devoted, one person who trusts you, who believes in you no matter what. Marriage is about the one person you call when you have had a bad day to tell them about it. Marriage is about someone’s shoulder you cry on for comfort. Marriage is about having someone beside you and knowing that come what may they will still be beside you, and that makes the road just a little bit more endurable. Marriage is about experiencing joy together, and no joy is complete without sharing it. Marriage is about being able to endure suffering because you are able to ease the suffering of your spouse.

Having any number of people you can choose from invalidates it.

If my husband has a bad day and he comes home and tells wife #2 about it…

It is unthinkable. to me.

[Anonymous]

I’m kind of surprised at the support of polygamy here. Polyandry to me seems like a red-herring, it happens but rarely. There’s a reason that civilized countries on earth ban polygamy. It’s bad for young men, it’s bad for young women, it’s bad for women, it’s bad for the economy as a whole. The only people it’s good for are the old men with more than one wife.

Whoever said it’s not about sex is correct. It’s about power.

[Anonymous]

There’s a big debate on gay marriage around here, but nobody’s really defined what straight marriage is here.

* It’s not for having children, going by the massive rate of children outside marriage here. This plays into gay hands, of course. It also applies to infertile couples.

* It’s not for sex, since people seem to do that outside marriage too.

* It’s not for companionship, since numerous people cohabit, and do so for decades.

* It’s not as a contract, since numerous people break it and treat it lightly.

It often seems like young men and women round here abandoned marriage long ago, and I wonder sometimes why the gays want something that most straight people no longer do. I suspect that after the initial rush, gay marriage will decline, like its straight companion will.

The only thing it seems to be, is a way for the government to make money! Sad, but true.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, a gay friend of mine pointed out rightly that once you have gay marriage, it opens a can of worms, and leads directly to the question of polygamy.

Nearly every argument leveled againt polygamy can also be put against monogamy. I list below some of the arguments which can be put against both monogamy and polygamy –

* Abuse. Happens in both.

* Forced/arranged marriage. Happens in numerous monogamous marriages.

* Subservience. Happens in both.

* Gender inequality. Happens in both.

* Under age marriage. Yep, this happens in many monogamous marriages elsewhere.

* Abandonment of children & economics – happens in many monogamous marriages.

* Envy. Happens in both. STDs, can happen in both. Even after one party ceases promiscuity. Or catches it from a one off encounter.

Quote:

There’s a reason that civilized countries on earth ban polygamy. It’s bad for young men, it’s bad for young women, it’s bad for women, it’s bad for the economy as a whole. The only people it’s good for are the old men with more than one wife.

Or the rich, or the attractive.

No matter what hogwash gets put about out there about “sexual liberation” in the 1960s, the brutal truth is better put in the song “I learned the truth at seventeen That love was meant for beauty queens And high school girls with clear skinned smiles”. It’s for the young, attractive, and socially able. The rest have to try harder.

And that song doesn’t just apply to women by the way. It could easily be couched in male references.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

Polyandry to me seems like a red-herring, it happens but rarely.

Happens all the time in an informal setting. In some cases, it can be a matter of who’s exploiting who.

[Anonymous]

Like I said, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

i kind of think we have two subjects going on here. My opinion on both:

1: Polygamy in the church:

a. Did joseph institute it or was it all BY? Sounds like a clear case of Joseph was all in.

b. Inspired and righteous in certain circumstances: Lots of opinion here. I feel it was not truly inspired. Either joseph was deluded, or just a horny guy using his authority to get women. My guess is since he wasn’t out there scooping up the old widows the latter is the case. The whole “God says we need to be married” thing sounds like the old BYU trick of guys telling girls they had a dream that she was “the one”. I find no excuse for the behaviour…..i also think this is a strong case against the inspired re-org of the church being “gods only”. I do think that there are inspired teachings in the church and it is possible to have inspired leaders today despite the rough beginnings.

2: Polygamy, viable today?

a. Could it be legalized today: Absolutely. I can go digging for links but with the whole shift in cultural mindset and with the gay marriage challenges, etc means that there is no legal reason for polygamy to be illegal. The things i have read is that this is a law just waiting to be struck down as soon as someone decides to challenge it. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is why the polyg folks out there are not being prosecuted…..because I think it would create a legal mess to have this become more widespread…

b. Would it be accepted by the church: Not in a million years. It goes against the sensibility of most. Assigned Polygamy is a loss of free agency …and oppression at its highest level. I believe the church would also excommunicate voluntary polygamists even if it were legal….these day anything that feels liberal the church says no to….its just the LDS way.

c. Would it be accepted in society? I think it would. Not by a large number but I think some would go for it. I think it would be most popular amongst people in their 40’s and up…..it then becomes a convenience thing. Just as homosexual inclinations are real, so is Polyamorous inclinations….which is probably why Joseph and Brigham and the boys did what they did. Open relationships are on the rise as it is…especially inplaces like Portland. As mentioned before I have heard professional women openly discussing the desire for “part time husbands”. I could deal with it either way in my relationship, my wife definitely could not. Polygamy, just like homosexuality, is repugnant to those without the inclination but that doesn’t make it ok to be “illegal”.

d. Would it be good for society? nope. I think it would cause a tone of legal headaches, more issues with screwed up kids and child custody and property battles in the courts. I think it would increase the number of churches lead by horny old guys inspired to browbeat young girls into it and it would further confuse the family definition that still is the foundation of keeping the country strong. I believe a country of people without roots will lead to bad things.

[Anonymous]

Sambee……I’m sorry but you and most men miss the point as to why polygamy is so EVIL!!!

When a “religious prophet” commands that polygamy be instituted and than ties it to a woman’s salvation we are talking about a whole another level of evil and control. It is the THREAT of being dammed and not getting into heaven that is so evil! It takes away a woman’s choice because the church or her spiritual leaders are saying that she will not be able to go to heaven if she does not follow the church’s rules. Throw in the additional threat of not being with her children in heaven or the children’s eternal salvation in danger, and you have a type of evil that is sickening!!

If movie stars or consenting adults want to try out a thousand different combinations in the secular world that is different than RELIGIOUS polygamy! The consenting adults are not being threatened with the loss of their soul! That is why any argument about polygamy is different if we are talking about it being a RELIGIOUS commandment!!

Polygamy is an institution that “spiritual” men use in order to have sex with other women, most of the time YOUNG girls/women.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

Nearly every argument leveled againt polygamy can also be put against monogamy. I list below some of the arguments which can be put against both monogamy and polygamy –

Quote:

There’s a reason that civilized countries on earth ban polygamy. It’s bad for young men, it’s bad for young women, it’s bad for women, it’s bad for the economy as a whole. The only people it’s good for are the old men with more than one wife.

I feel myself getting sucked into an argument here against my will. Like rebeccad said, we’ll have to agree to disagree, but one last comment from me:

Even if you concede that every argument against polygamy can be leveled against monogamy (which I will do temporarily for the sake of this discussion) – I think you must concede that in a Mormon context it’s dangerous to women. Think about how covenants for women differ in the temple from men’s covenants (submit to your husband), think about the power structure in the church – only men in regional and worldwide decision making positions. Mormon polygamy + mormon power structure = Mormon women subject to Mormon men.

I simply can’t see it happening in any other way. You may argue it doesn’t have to be the case generally, but that’s how it turned out in this church in the 1800’s and that’s how it would happen again today.

[Anonymous]

johnh wrote:

Ok…for clarity I dug up the quote.

HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

We need more clarity because that snippet does not even specify the subject. When President Hinckley said “I condemn it,” what was he referring to? Here are some important excerpts from the interview:

Quote:

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don’t belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there’s, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

---

Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you’re forceful here tonight, but maybe — they’ve been saying that it’s rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know. We’ll consider it.

Larry King: I’m giving you an idea.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

Larry King: Would you look better if you were…

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know that we would or not. As far as I’m concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.[/size]

They were talking about modern-day polygamy in Utah, which is not associated with the Church.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Postby Dax » 04 Jan 2013, 11:26

Sambee……I’m sorry but you and most men miss the point as to why polygamy is so EVIL!!!

When a “religious prophet” commands that polygamy be instituted and than ties it to a woman’s salvation we are talking about a whole another level of evil and control. It is the THREAT of being dammed and not getting into heaven that is so evil! It takes away a woman’s choice because the church or her spiritual leaders are saying that she will not be able to go to heaven if she does not follow the church’s rules. Throw in the additional threat of not being with her children in heaven or the children’s eternal salvation in danger, and you have a type of evil that is sickening!!

If movie stars or consenting adults want to try out a thousand different combinations in the secular world that is different than RELIGIOUS polygamy! The consenting adults are not being threatened with the loss of their soul! That is why any argument about polygamy is different if we are talking about it being a RELIGIOUS commandment!!

Polygamy is an institution that “spiritual” men use in order to have sex with other women, most of the time YOUNG girls/women.

I think this is spot on.

To be honest…I don’t see much difference between the polygamy of 1840-1890s and what is happening with the FLDS and specifically Warren Jeffs.

Really, the only difference I see is that some folks consider JS and BY to be TRUE prophets, and Warren Jeffs and his ilk to be false prophets….so what…they used the same techniques…which is exactly, IMO, what Dax just described.

I have no problem if three, four, twenty… adults want to live in a marriage situation, as long as it is not based on “religious manipulation.” Yeah, that is evil, IMO.

And, I actually liked the way JS did the whole polandry over what BY did with polygamy. “What is good for the goose is good gander.” Of course, JS had an issue with sharing Emma…but in the end he finally consented to allow her to marry William Law. At least that is what many scholars believe what happened.

If men can have sex and relationships with multiple women…woman should be allowed to have sex and relationships with multiple men. Both sexes have emotional and physical needs. I’m thinking if JS had not be killed, the church would have gone in this direction.

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to argue, but there are responses that deserve another. It seems a common concern is that Joseph employed manipulation and/or coercion to obtain wives. I would say that persuasion was used at times. Even though a proposal was sometimes presented as a commandment, it was always left to the woman to obtain a witness for herself. If it really was a commandment, then it was important to say so.

Dax wrote:

OK I’m sorry but I am so tired of hearing that, “well you know, things were different back then, it was ok for a 14 your old to marry a 37 year old man, oh well we can’t prove they had sex….blah blah blah”!!!! Give me a break! This isn’t about well “polygamy causes pain for SOME women”, polygamy causes pain for all women involved, it is an evil practice when linked to ones eternal salvation….

If it was a correct principle than there would not be such anguish to take away!!

The traditions and rules of society during a certain time period are very relevant, as are the circumstances around which one entered into plural marriage. Many of the sealings absolutely did not involve sex, while others actually did. It seems that considering those factors could soften the issue. I really don’t want to argue, but I think more peace might be found by getting some good information – of course, I don’t know what you have studied and you may be well-read on the subject, so this is a general statement to all here – like reading Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling.

Cnsl1 wrote:

Shawn, there may be another explanation of Mary Lightner’s story that WOULD suggest JS was manipulating her. If he was the “angel” who came to visit her, then asked her “did you see that angel yet?” That’s manipulation at its finest.

I’m not saying that’s what happened, but if you read her account with that possibility in mind, it could make a sensible explanation of the events.

I find her testimony to be impressive and I am inclined to take her at her word.

rebeccad wrote:

No, I have to disagree, even if there are people who were content with it, it is still inherently evil. It takes women from being equal partners with her husband to being subservient to him. Even if she is ok with that, it is still wrong. Even is children don’t mind their father having his attention divided it is still wrong. Even if none of those things happen, it is still wrong.

rebeccad wrote:

Quote:

Polygamy doesn’t actually have to mean reducing women to subervience.

You are correct, it could men reducing men to subservience. Either way-bad.

If a wife can be subservient to her husband or a husband could be reduced to subservience, why can’t it be possible that there is a middle-ground?

johnh wrote:

Anyways…your paragraph describes why I would feel better if it turned out Joseph Smith has been framed as polygamist…I already thought Brigham young was a nut…if we could lay all polygamy at his feet it would ease my soul some. No such luck it seems….

1: Polygamy in the church:

a. Did joseph institute it or was it all BY? Sounds like a clear case of Joseph was all in.

b. Inspired and righteous in certain circumstances: Lots of opinion here. I feel it was not truly inspired. Either joseph was deluded, or just a horny guy using his authority to get women. My guess is since he wasn’t out there scooping up the old widows the latter is the case. The whole “God says we need to be married” thing sounds like the old BYU trick of guys telling girls they had a dream that she was “the one”. I find no excuse for the behaviour…..i also think this is a strong case against the inspired re-org of the church being “gods only”. I do think that there are inspired teachings in the church and it is possible to have inspired leaders today despite the rough beginnings.

I am not sure which paragraph you are referring to. I only hope that your soul can be put at ease. Frankly. I think those who try to be convinced that Joseph was not involved are setting themselves up for more disappoint because there is so much evidence to the contrary. I say it’s better to tackle that now.

Do have any support for saying “Either joseph was deluded, or just a horny guy using his authority to get women. My guess is since he wasn’t out there scooping up the old widows the latter is the case.”? I don’t believe there is much evidence of that. For what it’s worth, he was sealed to a woman who was 47 years old (Patty Bartlett), one who was 50 (Elizabeth Davis), one who was 58 (Rhoda Richards), and other older women. I am curious if you have read from Rough Stone Rolling. The following addresses the question of whether he was out to “get women” or if there were other factors:

Quote:

What drove him to a practice that put his life and his work in jeopardy, not to mention his relationship with Emma? Was he a dominant male whose ego brooked no bounds?…

Joseph ordinarily followed the commandments punctiliously, as if disobedience put him at risk. In the case of plural marriage, he held off for two or three years before marrying Fanny Alger, and then after this one unsuccessful attempt, waited another five years. The delay showed an uncharacteristic reluctance, hard for one who feared God. In some of Joseph’s revelations the Lord speaks as a friend, but in others with the voice of thunder. Writing to a woman whom he hoped would be his wife, he described the two sides of the image: “Our heavenly father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive, and at the same time is as terrible to workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of his punishments, and more ready to detect every false way than we are apt to suppose him to be. ”…

The possibility of an imaginary revelation, erupting from his own heart and subconscious mind, seems not to have occurred to Joseph. To him, the words came from heaven. They required obedience even though the demand seemed contradictory or wrong. The possibility of deception did occur to him. Satanic counterfeits concerned Joseph; he talked to the Saints about the detection of fraudulent angels. But when Lightner asked if perhaps plural marriage was of the devil, Joseph said no. In his mind, the revelation came from God, and he had to obey or suffer. The written form of the revelation, recorded in 1843 (later canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 132) said bluntly, “I reveal unto you a New and an Everlasting Covenant and if ye abide not that Covenant, then are ye damned.”…

The revelation on marriage promised Joseph an “hundred fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.” Like Abraham of old, Joseph yearned for familial plentitude. He did not lust for women so much as he lusted for kin.

Romance played only a slight part. In making proposals, Joseph would sometimes say God had given a woman to him, or they were meant for each other, but there was no romantic talk of adoring love. He did not court his prospective wives by first trying to win their affections. Often he asked a relative-a father or an uncle-to propose the marriage. Sometimes one of his current wives proposed for him. When he made the proposal himself, a friend like Brigham Young was often present. The language was religious and doctrinal, stressing that a new law has been revealed. She was to seek spiritual confirmation. Once consent was given, a formal ceremony was performed before witnesses, with Joseph dictating the words to the person officiating.

Joseph himself said nothing about sex in these marriages. Other marriage experimenters in Joseph’s times focused on sexual relations…Joseph, so far as can be told, never discussed the sexual component of marriage, save for his concern about adultery.

We might expect that Joseph, the kind of dominant man who is thought to have strong libidinal urges, would betray his sexual drive in his talk and manner. Bred outside the rising genteel culture, he was not inhibited by Victorian prudery. But references to sexual pleasure are infrequent. Years later, William Law, Joseph’s counselor in the First Presidency, said he was shocked once to hear Joseph say one of his wives “afforded him great pleasure.” That report is one of the few, and the fact that it shocked Law suggests such comments were infrequent. As Fawn Brodie said, “There was too much of the Puritan” in Joseph for him to be a “careless libertine.”

[Author]

Posts