Okay I’ll say it, Polygamy

[Anonymous]

My conclusion to this topic is:

– What do I base my religious faith & beliefs on?

My faith is based on Jesus Christ & Jesus Christ alone.

– Does the LDS church fill all of my spiritual needs?

No. Absolutely not. (I won’t declare that in a F&T meeting.)

– Will I ever understand all the history or teachings of the church?

Again, No. That will have to satisfy me for now or I will do something else.

– Where do I go from here?

I plan to stick with the basics of the gospel (JC). I like the scriptures & some of the General Authorities.

I like the social contacts I have at church. I know who I can discuss sensitive topics with & who I cannot.

I have a calling that I like. Family History & Temple Work (sometimes). It doesn’t grab anyone’s attention both in our ward or stake.

Everything else (like polygamy) will be set aside. These are topics that don’t feed me spiritually.

I hope that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

– why was polygamy necessary?

– why did JS practice it & introduce it?

Some years ago, I set about collecting the justifications that JS and his contemporaries had given

Quote:

1. God commands it: “God said thou shalt not kill, at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy…that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another…Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is…although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” RSR p. 441 “I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise. “TPJS p. 256, 324

2. The ancient patriarchs practiced it (apparently without divine condemnation).

3. To fashion a righteous generation on the eve of the Second Coming: “The Lord has revealed to me that it is his will that righteous men shall take righteous women, even a plurality of wives, that a righteous race may be sent forth upon the earth preparatory to the ushering in of the millennial reign of our Redeemer.” RSR p. 326, Jacob 2:24-30

4. For “greater glory”: “The first commandment was to ‘Multiply’ and the Prophet taught us that Dominion & power in the great future would be commensurate with the number of ‘wives, children & friends’ that we inherit here and that our great mission to earth was to organize a nucleus of Heaven to take with us. To the increase of which there would be no end.”…”When the family organization was revealed from heaven- the patriarchal order of God, and Joseph began, on the right hand and the left, to add to his family, what a quaking there was in Israel.” In Sacred loneliness p. 10-11 “Joseph’s kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those bonded to that family would be exalted with him.” JS reportedly said “I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie. All that he gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me.” In Sacred Loneliness. The purpose was “to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities…Like Abraham of old, Joseph yearned for familial plentitude.” RSR p 439-440, D & C 132:55 “If your [husband] and you should be alone by the side of such a king as Abraham or Solomon with all his queens and their numerous servants and waiting maids in courtly livery, would he not look like a mere rushlight by the side of such suns, or rather would he be seen at all! I should almost fear that your [husband] would be taken for a servant, and you for a waiting maid; or if they should, in the galaxy and splendor of 144,00 such suns as Solomon, happen to see you and your [husband] with a king’s coronet upon his head, they might think him short of wedding garments, or that the selfishness of his wife had stinted his growth to such an insignificant, crab-tree size! Besides, a Queen to him that has his hundreds of wives in eternity, with children as numberless as the stars of heaven, would receive intelligence, wealth, honour, children, and dominion, in some measure proportioned to the exaltations of her husband and king; while your [husband], not having much to look after besides you, could not demand the same measure of wealth, honour, and dominion, because he could use upon you and your little family but a small pittance of what pertains to one moving in a wider and far more exalted sphere. Your intelligence, and that of your children, could not rise higher than the intelligence of your husband. Consequently, you must see yourself and your husband, and your children, continually outstripped in intelligence by all others around you. Your social circle must consequently be very limited at home. And your offspring not be as numerous. The motive which would lead you to retain your husband exclusively to yourself, would contribute to make you comparatively unfruitful, and also vitiate the mental and bodily functions of your offspring, and sow the seeds of death and mortality in their systems… Hence I see the wisdom of God in not tolerating any such system [as monogamy] among the celestial worthies who are to be kings and queens unto God for ever…. God has determined to bestow His greatest blessings upon the liberal order, and only very stinted favours upon the narrow, contracted order [of monogamy] which you seem to desire. In the former order your children are all the lawful heirs of thrones and kingdoms, and in your favourite order they are only the heirs of servile inferiority.” Millennial Star 1853 Nelly & Abby

5. Pre-mortal commitments: “Joseph said I was his, before I came here. He said all the Devils in Hell should never get me from him.” JS had been told to marry Mary, “or suffer condemnation- for I (Mary) was created for him before the foundation of the Earth was laid.” In Sacred Loneliness, also “thou made a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while here in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring. You also choose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world … to be your be head, stay, husband, and protector on the earth, and to exalt you in the eternal worlds. All these were arranged.” The Origin and Destiny of Women, John Taylor. Said Asael Smith, Grandfather of the Prophet, “I believe God hath created the persons for each other, and that Nature will find its own.” The Family of Joseph Smith p 16

[Anonymous]

When perhaps the most prominent LDS polygamy apologist Brian Hales visited StayLDS, I tried to get him to respond to my list but he would not engage. In an attempt to be fair to Brother Hales, he is probably very busy and cannot write detailed responses to everybody on the internet.

However, I speculate that he did not want to discuss my list because it does not fit in well with his attempts to harmonize polygamy with modern church teachings.

From what I have read, Brian Hales takes the first two justifications from the list and ignores the remainder. God commanded it to Joseph and the ancient patriarchs practiced it. In this view, it was a necessary part of the “restoration of all things.” We checked that metaphorical box and now we can move on. God is merciful to allow those that practiced polygyny in the early LDS church to remain sealed forever in the eternities. They made a huge sacrifice in faith and we will be forever thankful for them fulfilling that requirement (so that we now don’t have to). Also since polygyny will exist in the afterlife then God might as well allow widower men who have been married to more than one woman in this life to also remain married. (as an aside, Brother Hales completely refutes polyandry and insists that any married woman that became sealed to JS automatically/de facto divorced her first husband even if she still continued to live with her first husband and looked outwardly to be married to him)

but what about items 3, 4, and 5 on my list?

#3 is that the second coming was immanent and we needed to raise a large righteous generation post haste. This is somewhat embarrassing as a justification because almost 200 years have passed and the second coming still has not happened. If polygamy was required then to have kids fast and we are even closer to the second coming, would our urgency not now be greater. We can see that the opposite has happened. As a church we seem to be moving away from any teachings that family size is important for doctrinal reasons. Was JS and his contemporaries wrong about how quickly the second coming was expected? Yes, they were.

#4 polygyny earns you greater glory and exaltation in heaven. We as a church no longer teach that. In fact, a fairly recent teachers edition of a CES manual reminded teachers not to speculate on whether polygyny might be required to enter the top level of the celestial kingdom. (I find it noteworthy that rather than to state unequivocally that polygyny is not required and that such should not be taught, the teachers were told not to speculate on the matter. Thus leaving the door open that it could be required.) This is not a teaching that church leadership wants to address.

#5 You made promises to live polygyny in the pre-mortal life. This teaching is likewise not consistent with our current church doctrines. If people made specific promises in pre-mortal life that they do not now remember then what is the point of making those promises?

In summary, I believe that Brother Hales is working as an apologist and not as a historian. Rather than attempt to understand polygamy as through the lens of historical context, I believe that Brother Hales has started with a position that puts the modern church on the best possible footing and then works backward to cherry pick evidence that fits the thesis.

I believe that the general approach taken by Brother Hales in this matter also mirrors the approach of Elder Oaks and the church leadership towards the priesthood ban and temple restriction. Brother Hales says that God commanded polygyny to the ancient patriarchs and then commanded it again to JS (only to command for polygyny to cease with the manifesto). God doesn’t have to explain himself. Elder Oaks says that God restricted priesthood to certain bloodlines anciently and then did so again during the restoration. God doesn’t have to explain himself.

That’s my $0.02

[Anonymous]

Roy, I am so impressed with your posts. You have a way of organizing your thoughts and ideas so I can understand them.

I had to print the last 2 out, read & reread them, then I underlined passages and wrote notes in the margins. You deal

with the facts then come up with logical conclusions. I wish I was more like you that way.

I have the tendency to deal with topics like polygamy with my emotions. I wish I could read Brian Hales books titled:

Quote:

Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

(4 volumes). I’m afraid I would come away angrier then when I started.

Everything I’ve read to date seems to justify the practice of polygamy not to establish it as a religious principle or teaching,

designed & directed by God through revelation that furthers man’s attempt to come closer to Heavenly Father.

IMO, it cannot be justified. If it can’t be justified, the church should declare it.

[Anonymous]

Many many years ago when i believed differently, I had the thought that once same sex marriage was legalized it would not be long before polygamous marriage would also be legalized then the church could resume practicing it since the reason they stopped was to comply with the law of the land.

Then I felt the church would never do that since they’d spent decades disavowing the practice and moved more into the “mainstream” of Christian churches, or at least tried to.

Now here we are. Gay marriage is legal. Polygamy isn’t really but it’s not being prosecuted. Also, the “fruits” of Polygamy as a social experiment seem dismal in terms of mental health, risk of weird genetic mutations, and propensity of pariarchal abuse. I imagine some consenting adults could practice it just fine, but as a church-influenced and supported practice would be, in my opinion, about as much of a train wreck as we’ve seen with the fundamentalist faction of the church.

And also, it’s obviously still too far on the social fringes that it would alienate the centrist population of “saints” that the church is desperately trying to hang on to. You can’t really argue that we don’t believe it anymore, just that we don’t practice it. But if the church readily admits it’s still God’s law and that there will be polygamy in heaven, the hardliners or true blue faction will press for legalization and resumption. I suppose it’s possible that prophet roulette would eventually get us to a leader who would RE restore it for our temporal earthly state, but that seems highly unlikely given the dispositions of our corporate manager “spiritual” leaders.

That’s just my opinion.

As to why it started? Based on my study, I don’t know if Joseph already had the idea in mind, but I’d say it was to cover things initially, then he probably convinced himself that it was God ordained.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

My conclusion to this topic is:

– What do I base my religious faith & beliefs on?

My faith is based on Jesus Christ & Jesus Christ alone.

– Does the LDS church fill all of my spiritual needs?

No. Absolutely not. (I won’t declare that in a F&T meeting.)

– Will I ever understand all the history or teachings of the church?

Again, No. That will have to satisfy me for now or I will do something else.

– Where do I go from here?

I plan to stick with the basics of the gospel (JC). I like the scriptures & some of the General Authorities.

I like the social contacts I have at church. I know who I can discuss sensitive topics with & who I cannot.

I have a calling that I like. Family History & Temple Work (sometimes). It doesn’t grab anyone’s attention both in our ward or stake.

Everything else (like polygamy) will be set aside. These are topics that don’t feed me spiritually.

I hope that makes sense.

I think this is an excellent point of view and applies to other troublesome stuff in the church as well. If the focus of the church truly is Jesus Christ (and I believe it is) nothing else really matters.

[Anonymous]

I had my big wrestle with polygamy several years ago. In a few (a very few) conversations I’ve had with friends I hear things like, What does this have to do with Jesus Christ? And I say, My point exactly. Nothing. Just like – as the church as admitted – the priesthood ban had nothing at all to do with Christ. The church has recognized the ban and all its justifications as simply wrong, full stop.

Something similar needs to happen with polygamy if the church cares about keeping young women on board. It’s complicated because the fruits of polygamy are the hundreds of thousands of wonderful members descended from it. With the priesthood ban, the result was virtually no black members, an absence, not a presence. Polygamy can’t be disavowed in any way that brings shame upon anyone.

But the discussions [not referring to anything in this thread, but to leadership, scholars, apologists] about what Joseph was doing, why, then Brigham Young, why, how different, etc., etc. – what’s lost in all the legalistic, scriptural, doctrinal debate is the women. The way these women and girls were treated was despicable, in my opinion. And the church prioritizing anything above how they were treated is a mistake, again, in my opinion.

The church eventually saw that how they treated and discussed black people was wrong. A lot of twenty-first century women aren’t interested in a church that won’t at the very, very least say unequivocally that earthly/mortal polygamy – a living man with multiple living wives – is absolutely over. They prefer to justify the past by keeping it on the back burner in the present, by saying that God isn’t commanding it … now. It can make a woman feel like perhaps a black person would feel if the church said, You can have the priesthood … for now.

Anyway, that’s my $.02.

[Anonymous]

I just went into familysearch & looked at the records for Joseph Smith & Brigham Young.

JS is sealed to 30 wives. (I understand that some sealings were done after his death)

BY is sealed to 53 wives.

The church seems to be ok with polygamy as long as you’re dead?

I find the whole thing very interesting. I don’t believe it. But, it is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

I just went into familysearch & looked at the records for Joseph Smith & Brigham Young.

JS is sealed to 30 wives. (I understand that some sealings were done after his death)

BY is sealed to 53 wives.

The church seems to be ok with polygamy as long as you’re dead?

I find the whole thing very interesting. I don’t believe it. But, it is interesting.

Yes the church is ok with polygamy as a theoretical construct among dead people. It’s when you have “polygamy-adjacent” practices such as serial monogamy that tie 1 person to 1 partner at a time. The fact that sealing multiple women to the same man is “polygamy” in the next life is messy. The fact that sealing multiple men to 1 woman is “polyandry” (and shouldn’t be a possible configuration as not revealed by prophets) is messy. “Because Priesthood…” as the final answer is messy and a poor reference guide.

Polygamy and Polyandry don’t seem to cleanly point a person to being a better follower of Jesus Christ, and don’t seem to help families become stronger families (at least in the Western culture we grew up in). Our culture is also less interested in supporting large families – due to climate change, globalization, and automation (to name a few trend-setters). At the time of the 1840’s and 1850’s, actively colonizing the American Midwest required supporting large families in the European American technology model, hence more kids, converts and organizational control. Times have changed a bit:)

I think it is important to think through some of the implications/impacts that polygamy had and continues to have on how families operate and what families value. The tie-in that Polygamy is a construct authorized by Patriarchy magnifies the issues that both Patriarchy and Polygamy have.

[Anonymous]

Roy’s point number 4.

Quote:

4. For “greater glory”: “The first commandment was to ‘Multiply’ and the Prophet taught us that Dominion & power in the great future would be commensurate with the number of ‘wives, children & friends’ that we inherit here and that our great mission to earth was to organize a nucleus of Heaven to take with us. To the increase of which there would be no end.”

I love to do Family History. When I first joined the church, I thought that I wasn’t related to anyone who had joined the church. Today, with the software available through BYU, etc, I now know there are many people that I am related to, both living & dead. For the early teachings of the

church regarding polygamy, I’m wondering if they (the leadership) were looking in the wrong direction. Instead of gathering more wives & having

more children, maybe they were being encouraged to appreciate where they came from instead. There are literally thousands or hundreds of

thousands of people who came before us. I am moved spiritually when I find another who I’m related to. In the process, I wonder what their life

was like & what sacrifices they made along their journey.

Is it possible for someone to receive a revelation & they are looking in the wrong direction?

Or, in the case of polygamy, they have a revelation that gives them the answer they want? or justifies their own desires?

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

Roy’s point number 4.

Quote:

4. For “greater glory”: “The first commandment was to ‘Multiply’ and the Prophet taught us that Dominion & power in the great future would be commensurate with the number of ‘wives, children & friends’ that we inherit here and that our great mission to earth was to organize a nucleus of Heaven to take with us. To the increase of which there would be no end.”

I love to do Family History. When I first joined the church, I thought that I wasn’t related to anyone who had joined the church. Today, with the software available through BYU, etc, I now know there are many people that I am related to, both living & dead. For the early teachings of the

church regarding polygamy, I’m wondering if they (the leadership) were looking in the wrong direction. Instead of gathering more wives & having

more children, maybe they were being encouraged to appreciate where they came from instead. There are literally thousands or hundreds of

thousands of people who came before us. I am moved spiritually when I find another who I’m related to. In the process, I wonder what their life

was like & what sacrifices they made along their journey.

Is it possible for someone to receive a revelation & they are looking in the wrong direction?

Or, in the case of polygamy, they have a revelation that gives them the answer they want? or justifies their own desires?

For my .02 cents, I don’t think they were “looking in the wrong direction” as much as trying to answer questions/receive revelations empowering themselves (they were refugees of Nauvoo and the American government respectively) and justifying their leadership. They were so busy trying to prove their leadership and that “they were right” that they “didn’t get it right” in a lot of things – especially in the domain of male-female relationships and gender performances.

I do think that revelations “justifying their own desires” was assuredly what was happening. I am far less certain that that there was a deliberate component to it. I think that Joseph Smith truly desired a connective social structure based on priesthood sealings – which may or may not have included wives for specific desires. I think that Brigham Young had a more literal take on polygamy, and was more connected to the polygamy process from essentially a breeding righteous children/bloodlines stance (and that he felt himself a solid sire, hence lots of wives).

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

I think that Joseph Smith truly desired a connective social structure based on priesthood sealings – which may or may not have included wives for specific desires.

Yes, JS is pretty enigmatic and difficult to pin down on these things. He kept on changing in ways that surprised and frustrated his early followers.

I do believe that he wanted connective social structure with dynastic linkings. Several of his sealings were of this type and includes his sealing to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball. From my research, I do not believe that this marriage was ever sexually consumated. However, it also does not appear to have been a “spiritual only” marriage and young Helen seems to have been surprised that she was no longer permitted to attend the dances afterwards. The evidence suggests that these marriages/sealings of JS contained both physical and spiritual components and existed along a spectrum.

[Anonymous]

This is going to sound harsher than the spirit that I’m delivering it in but I don’t know any other way to put it that isn’t so blunt. I’m also not singling out your comment Roy, this really applies to most discussions about polygamy that’ve I’ve heard over the years.

Abusive behaviors are still abusive regardless of the motives that drive them. Behaviors can still be abusive even when they do not include intercourse.

When discussing polygamy there’s always a lot of focus on JS, likely because of the implications the practice of polygamy has on the church he restored. What gets lost is the burden that the practice of polygamy placed on women.

I don’t believe god would place such a burden on people that were so faithful.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

AmyJ wrote:

I think that Joseph Smith truly desired a connective social structure based on priesthood sealings – which may or may not have included wives for specific desires.

Yes, JS is pretty enigmatic and difficult to pin down on these things. He kept on changing in ways that surprised and frustrated his early followers.

I do believe that he wanted connective social structure with dynastic linkings. Several of his sealings were of this type and includes his sealing to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball. From my research, I do not believe that this marriage was ever sexually consumated. However, it also does not appear to have been a “spiritual only” marriage and young Helen seems to have been surprised that she was no longer permitted to attend the dances afterwards. The evidence suggests that these marriages/sealings of JS contained both physical and spiritual components and existed along a spectrum.

I agree JS is enigmatic and difficult to pin down. I try to imagine what it was like to live in that time period & going to his wife Emma and revealing

for the first time “I have a revelation” or “I have been inspired” or “God told me”… I know what my wife would of said. It would not have been a

pleasant discussion. Maybe that is the conclusion: it was a different time & place. Similar to traveling to a galaxy far, far away. I cannot justify the

practice or belief that it was inspired using modern day morals. I would of loved the opportunity to talk to, or disagree with JS when this was

first presented. What would the reaction be? I wonder: would there have been any give & take? Assuming there would of been room for open

discussion.

nibbler, I like what you had to say too. Especially “What gets lost is the burden that the practice of polygamy placed on women.”

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

I agree JS is enigmatic and difficult to pin down. I try to imagine what it was like to live in that time period & going to his wife Emma and revealing

for the first time “I have a revelation” or “I have been inspired” or “God told me”… I know what my wife would of said. It would not have been a

pleasant discussion.

I don’t think it was a “pleasant discussion” ever:)

I think we see that in the D&C “revelation” regarding swords and Emma.

Minyan Man wrote:

Maybe that is the conclusion: it was a different time & place. Similar to traveling to a galaxy far, far away. I cannot justify the

practice or belief that it was inspired using modern day morals. I would of loved the opportunity to talk to, or disagree with JS when this was

first presented. What would the reaction be? I wonder: would there have been any give & take? Assuming there would of been room for open

discussion.

It gets murky for sure… It’s unsettling in the sense that it “legalized” for men potentially emotional adultery, physical adultery, financial adultery for sure (though it was marketed as “Re-distribution of resources for entrance to Celestial Kingdom” and was more universal).

We also know that women weren’t as empowered/given equal authority in terms of the opportunity to learn, vote, and there were financial limitations on what they could sign on their own accord, and how to get out of abusive situations (if it was even possible).

Sometimes I think that the formation of the Relief Society (with a lot of female autonomy) and the Word of Wisdom (getting tobacco out of Emma’s rooms) were “boons” for Emma directly and/or women directly to appease them on some level.

Those forms of “adultery” weren’t exactly revolutionary, and “abuse” as we know and define it was pervasive enough that D&C 121 was written to counter it.

Minyan Man wrote:

nibbler, I like what you had to say too. Especially “What gets lost is the burden that the practice of polygamy placed on women.”

I agree. We are now, 100+ years after the fact, getting an understanding of the burden and trauma that families endured because of polygamy and polygamy-related consequences (primarily the poverty-related consequences of having a part-time father shared with other aunts and cousins).

[Author]

Posts