Okay I’ll say it, Polygamy

[Anonymous]

What would the church be like today if the practice of polygamy had continued to the present day?

Would it be similar to what the FLDS church is going through?

For example, the need to excommunicate the number of men & incorporate their families into the surviving families?

Meaning the families of the leadership continues to grow. Higher numbers means a higher degree of exaltation.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

What would the church be like today if the practice of polygamy had continued to the present day?

Would it be similar to what the FLDS church is going through?

For example, the need to excommunicate the number of men & incorporate their families into the surviving families?

Meaning the families of the leadership continues to grow. Higher numbers means a higher degree of exaltation.

Of course, we could not make any predictions with certainty.

However, I do think that it is interesting to imagine what might have been. For example, I look at the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) and wonder if that might have been the path of the main body of the church if we had stayed east and followed a direct line of prophetic succession.

I also look to the FLDS and wonder about the sort of US vs. THEM paranoia and end times rhetoric that we would have had if if we had dug in our heals over polygamy rather than discarding it. Utah gaining statehood and the LDS church moving mainstream have been very good for us.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

What would the church be like today if the practice of polygamy had continued to the present day?

Would it be similar to what the FLDS church is going through?

For example, the need to excommunicate the number of men & incorporate their families into the surviving families?

Meaning the families of the leadership continues to grow. Higher numbers means a higher degree of exaltation.

I am maybe going off on a larger side conversation.

“Family” has always been important. JS added to the word “family” when he added “priesthood = authority to tie/create families together”.

– This took the “marriage tying together” authority to outsiders (mothers and female caregivers were/are marginalized for tying families together by their own authority [“Priesthood authority is superior”] and fathers/male caregivers are also un-empowered in the family in some circumstances where their obligation to “make family” is super-ceded by a priesthood holder).

– This is the tension that “sealing first” temple marriages had when not all members qualify to be at the temple when the family members are tied together.

– Polygamy was a structure used to tie multiple women (and resulting children) to 1 man in this life, and/or the next life. BY took it to a biological direction, but he is not the only 1 by far.

NOTE: Serial Monogamy in our priesthood structure creates a polygamy loophole for living men, and privileging those priesthood-forged ties (as authority symbols) makes it a challenge to “de-couple” some of those sealings (primarily when the woman wants to).

– “Found Family” contends against this priesthood created family structure (but generally gets overlooked as a tension dynamic because most of the time, the challenge to priesthood authority creating the family is moot). It is kinda also reflected in some of the earlier sealing practices to link individuals to other specific individuals.

– Family “defined by gender and gender-performance” – so identities centered outside the gender role are accidentally contesting the priesthood authority to create/define family (this is the argument against the LGBTQIA populations actually). I don’t think it’s actually a “procreation argument”, I think it’s that the priesthood authority is used to tie together families between 1 man and at least 1 woman and their children – anything else (including undefined) cannot be tied together under priesthood authority, and going outside priesthood authority to do so is a challenge to that priesthood authority.

NOTE: Yes, this was the conservative party line. Yes, how it gets applied and (not applied) has become murkier.

I think the main side point is that “the downfall of the family” also equals “the downfall of priesthood authority” – because “priesthood authority” is being used to “preside over families” as a best practice. As it becomes more obvious that “partnership authority” is most important (empowering women and muddling the “what is the priesthood doing” question) and that “family structure is a personal definition” (cohabitation, less personal obligation “because family” , and better boundaries) means that the external priesthood holders don’t have the authority (from a pragmatic standpoint) to “define family”.

[Anonymous]

For the past few weeks or months, I have been watching a documentary series on the A&E (Arts & Entertainment) network, titled:

“Secrets of Polygamy”. The modern practice of polygamy is more widespread today than I ever realized. The main character in the

interview is a member of our LDS church & a former law enforcement officer. Part of the programs deals with people who escaped

the polygamist society & had to start new lives. The investigator (Browning) does a good job of talking with these people or “victims”.

By the end of each episode, I feel so depressed. I find myself asking the question: “What is the responsibility of the LDS church?”

First, starting & promoting the principles & beliefs by Joseph Smith?

Secord, not talking about the evil being practiced today?

Third, insisting that the practice is illegal & should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Forth, insisting that stronger laws be written & enforced.

I know that the church will excommunicate any member that practices polygamy today. But, is that enough?

For me, that’s a BIG NO. There is absolutely nothing being said (from church headquarters) about this horrible practice & crime.

IMO, there is nothing anyone can say that can justify it. Today or in history.

Now I’m in a bad mood.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

For the past few weeks or months, I have been watching a documentary series on the A&E (Arts & Entertainment) network, titled:

“Secrets of Polygamy”. The modern practice of polygamy is more widespread today than I ever realized. The main character in the

interview is a member of our LDS church & a former law enforcement officer. Part of the programs deals with people who escaped

the polygamist society & had to start new lives. The investigator (Browning) does a good job of talking with these people or “victims”.

By the end of each episode, I feel so depressed. I find myself asking the question: “What is the responsibility of the LDS church?”

First, starting & promoting the principles & beliefs by Joseph Smith?

Secord, not talking about the evil being practiced today?

Third, insisting that the practice is illegal & should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Forth, insisting that stronger laws be written & enforced.

I know that the church will excommunicate any member that practices polygamy today. But, is that enough?

For me, that’s a BIG NO. There is absolutely nothing being said (from church headquarters) about this horrible practice & crime.

IMO, there is nothing anyone can say that can justify it. Today or in history.

Now I’m in a bad mood.

Polygamy is men in relationship with women with a legal reason to do so. The practical reality of supporting 2 households (or not) is no different then having a wife and a girlfriend on the side.

Polygamy winds up being about sex, personal power/authority (or lack thereof), and control. Anything we can do as a community that actually works on those topics is likely useful. Our culture tends to do a “top down” male-centered voice on those topics as the “mouthpieces of God” are male leaders called to be prophets. Since we have male leaders sealed to multiple women in a serial monogamy format (which looks like polygamy in the next life for them), we are starting from a handicapped position. Teaching the future generations about healthy sexuality (and not objectifying women’s bodies through modesty), allowing universal access to divorce/gender-blind un-sealing practices, how power actually transfers between family members to empower each other (and prevent violence), are some pragmatic things that could be done and that the church should contribute more to.

[Anonymous]

I still have mixed feelings about Polygamy.

At the end of the day, I don’t like the idea of “sharing” a relationship such as marriage with others – but really, I just don’t want “the competition” for the time, talents, energy, attention of my spouse. On the other hand, there is great appeal to having “another set of hands in the business of meeting the needs of the family” with a high level of buy-in.

As it stands, every required marital function can be met via diplomatic channels, and/or outsourced to other parties, and/or substituted for. Polygamy was just one of the methods to diplomatically meet a male need that intersected with female (specifically first wife) executive functioning needs (at times). Polygamy had a unique feature of tying men and women together for both this life and potentially the next life in a way with some authority. Whether polygamy was more useful and/or less damaging then prostitutes, physical and/or emotional relationships outside of the marriage, the parentification of the children that followed “to protect the mothers” in a “variable father figure presiding” environment – that is anyone’s guess.

NOTE: I have an assumption that “polygamy” functioned as “single parenting” without the “death or divorce” closure in terms of daily living combined with the “he showed up to parent/support us” randomness associated with a parent being only limitedly able to “show up” for most women involved.

The other point I remember is that polygamy was instituted by men in their 20’s and 30’s (and sometimes 40’s) with much younger women. There would be an optimistic “it seems like a good idea at the time” vibe to it as these men were at their most physically powerful and had a higher level of vitality, and those younger women would have had an estrogen buffer to lull them into “being care takers” of those men and those families.

[Anonymous]

I pass no judgement regarding 2 or more consenting adults & what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

My issue is when a 60+ yr old man marries a 14 yr old girl.

Or, convincing the same girl that she needs to bear children early & often to be accepted by God.

Or, a man because of his station in an organization or society, feels justified in molesting young boys.

Or, the belief that the number of wives you marry & the number of children you “father” determines

your exaltation in the next life.

I have never heard the Church ever condemn, speak out or criticize the practice.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

I pass no judgement regarding 2 or more consenting adults & what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

My issue is when a 60+ yr old man marries a 14 yr old girl.

Or, convincing the same girl that she needs to bear children early & often to be accepted by God.

Or, a man because of his station in an organization or society, feels justified in molesting young boys.

Or, the belief that the number of wives you marry & the number of children you “father” determines

your exaltation in the next life.

I have never heard the Church ever condemn, speak out or criticize the practice.

These things “aren’t supposed to happen” because the priesthood holder is supposed to make the “right choices” in terms of how they handle their priesthood authority and their sexuality. A movement beyond general talking about the topic (like supporting domestic violence shelters so that the 14 year old could take the children and leave) would be picking the non-priesthood holder’s side (so even though the “sinning priesthood holder” shouldn’t have access to the Holy Ghost, and might be breaking the law with their practice, they are still the priesthood holder who could come back).

[Anonymous]

I just read “Let’s Talk about Polygamy”, written by LDS historian Brittany Chapman Nash, who delves into the history of polygamy among the Latter-day Saints.

Here are my takeaways.

It was a commandment for a 50-year duration so that there could be many LDS offspring. This parallels the Old Testament commandment. Nash points out the Book of Mormon underscore monogamy is the preferred commandments, and polygamy was just a short-term (50 years) commandment to raise LDS children.

To some women it was awful to other women it was joyful. Brigham Young allowed women to have easy divorces. Some men were righteous priesthood holders who did their best to be good husbands and fathers, and some were awful men preying on wanting to have sex with many women and could care less about being a good father.

But I have this wondering question. We often – including in this thread – think about women who were abused in polygamy. Some of this clearly happened and it is a good thought. This should never lose or forgotten.

I also wonder, however, if men with a high sex drive were also abused, but more unconsciously and from within themselves than another person abusing them. I wonder if some men, with high sex drive, though this is how God made me, wanted to have multiple wives and thought it was natural and then ended up in a perilous situation of having too many children and too many wives and could not take care of them properly. I cannot locate it right now but some LDS men (not all) argued for polygamy stating that is was natural due to high sex-drive and I wonder if they might have self-abused themselves.

Any thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Polygamy was about the sealing of multiple women to an individual man, period. These sealings were/are seen as a “divine” version of marriage and were set up to provide supports to a man in this life and in the next life in the guise of “coverture” aka “covering for” women.

This structure hasn’t necessarily gone away. Temple language set up that the women’s focus was her husband. An ongoing debate is “preside [over]” in family structure – what that actually means in practical family-level authority and “final say”.

I wonder sometimes if the lure of polygamy is that the promises to be the means to provide the capital for being taken care of rather then paying for it. If you have enough wives, they will handle your sex drive, raise the children to handle working your fields and the like, and take care of you in your old age for whatever you put out during the course of years before you need to be tended to and and can split the load amongst them – and it might be cheaper then outsourcing all those different functions (and you having the final say because you “preside” means that you have more control over the situation).

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

Polygamy was about the sealing of multiple women to an individual man, period. These sealings were/are seen as a “divine” version of marriage and were set up to provide supports to a man in this life and in the next life in the guise of “coverture” aka “covering for” women.

This structure hasn’t necessarily gone away. Temple language set up that the women’s focus was her husband. An ongoing debate is “preside [over]” in family structure – what that actually means in practical family-level authority and “final say”.

I wonder sometimes if the lure of polygamy is that the promises to be the means to provide the capital for being taken care of rather then paying for it. If you have enough wives, they will handle your sex drive, raise the children to handle working your fields and the like, and take care of you in your old age for whatever you put out during the course of years before you need to be tended to and and can split the load amongst them – and it might be cheaper then outsourcing all those different functions (and you having the final say because you “preside” means that you have more control over the situation).

Amy:

It sounds to me that you do not see a man with a high sex drive as being abused within his own sex drive. Rather, you see it as basically high sex driven men get it better. They can have as much sex as they want, with variety from multiple women, those women raise the children and the children and then the multiple wives take care of this man as he ages. Do I have this right?

I would agree with you related to some men. But it sounds too biological and robotic for other men. And not all men are the same.

I would guess some of the men could not sustain enough resources and money and some of the children died and dealt with poverty. For some men, those more focused on care and compassion I think the psychological effects would be very difficult.

Sort of off topic, but somewhat relevant, science today has suggested that men with lower

lower testosterones have a lower sex drive, and those men have often been rated by their wife’s as being better husbands and involved fathers. It is relevant as maybe the high sex driven men really do not have as much compassion and empathy and gain the benefits you suggested above. I see this as a tragedy for such men.

But I also thing there were some very good LDS men that were good to their many wives. I certainly do not see it as one size fits all.

[Anonymous]

I see it as higher sex drive men would be more interested in being involved in a polygamous system AND more likely to have higher testosterone levels so that the ratio of testosterone and other hormones is different – which has a hormonal impact on behavior. Specifically, oxytocin and estrogen are tied to care & compassion – if you have a testosterone heavy ratio, you are biologically wired to “care less” for others and more likely to be interested in sex. It is one of the reasons why teenage boys to men in their mid 40’s (or so) make some of the decisions they make and they are “intoxicated” in a sense by testosterone (which does drift down slower as a man ages starting in the mid-30’s). And in American culture, a man whose wife just gave birth in the last 6 months is likely to be oxytocin-starved because our men aren’t big on long-term hugs (that do create oxytocin) outside of hugging their now-touched-out wives.

In my mind, these higher sex drive men are the ones “getting the girl(s)”, getting the jobs, getting the power and authority in the system. And likely, getting in over their head in a lot of different scenarios because of their confidence and their previous successes and to cover insecurities.

Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were in their 30’s when they incorporated polygamy in their lives. In my opinion, Joseph did so because he wanted more community ties, community adoration, and he wanted a legacy in the afterlife. Brigham Young did so because he was building an empire (in essence) and wanted sex, family ties, and control of people to make it happen.

Wilford Woodruff had over 200 women sealed to him, and had a thing about hosting birthday parties where an activity was mass sealing women to him (he was old at the time too, making it even creepier) – so it wasn’t about the sex. I’m guessing he wanted to ensure he had a female fan club / cheer squad for the afterlife, but I honestly don’t know.

Our culture has consolidated a lot of expectations onto a marriage and the marriage partner with a romanticized interest in “the one” being whom you marry. Marriage in the 1820’s was about love & caring, but it was also more pragmatic about being an arrangement to get men off the streets (by pulling them into families and with a wife to be faithful to), produce a viable business, to produce a bustling and well-fed household that expanded into being cared for in one’s old age, and a way to socially connect to powerful people in the community. I think it functioned more like a “get out of jail free (leave drudgery to someone else)” card then the high-stakes spiritual & emotional investment we treat it as now. I honestly think that our communal conversations about polygamy read our expectations of marriage onto the past and cause more harm then the original union itself might have in some instances because of what our culture expects of marriage now.

[Anonymous]

Men especially are victims of the system that didn’t think the implications through about it. Our most explicit understanding of polygamy comes from the same D & C chapter where Emma is given a pretty strong “obey or else face destruction” non-consenting vibe. The stories about how polygamy came out always start with the consent of JS and BY being overwritten – that they didn’t want to participate but…

And the degree of lying that Joseph did to Emma to make it all work is the stuff of legends and made the whole situation more distrustful from the start.

Also, most empires and cults in their highest levels of influence embrace polygamy (or something like it with the main leaders having multiple women closely connected to them) – so it looks less like a divine feature (or bug) and more like a standard man-made system (or maybe scheme).

“Consent” as a concept is a “Yes/No” onetime binary that overhangs hundreds of individual decisions made in married life about how to provide in a shared communal family life. Did the men really have the ability to “say no” if they were called by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? I don’t know. I do know that some men were opposed to polygamy (originally Joseph Smith and Brigham Young actually) and then some of them changed their mind about it.

The thing is, polygamy “opened up” a lot of marriages in a very risky way that gave little room for true decision-making, equality, or consent – or the logistics of hosting the expanded family. The traumatic fallout from this opening brought the ire of the US government to Utah, impoverished countless family units (which may have been impoverished anyways). There is tension because the policy that a living man can be sealed to multiple women at the same time while a living women has to be “cancelled” from being sealed to more than 1 man at a time. This policy difference converts valued serial monogamy relationships into a form of polygamy which reinforces how polygamy has not worked out for women.

[Anonymous]

I think it was OldTimer that said that “biology can be a hard taskmaster.” I may not have gotten that right.

I absolutely agree that some people can have higher sex drives that are impacted by hormone levels. It can also be difficult for those individuals when they are married to a person with a lower sex drive. The problem is not the high sex drive nor the low sex drive but rather the mismatch. As a practical compromise solution I recommend scheduling sex and non-pornography masturbation to attempt to reach equilibrium between partners. I intentionally left this gender neutral because some women are the higher desire partner in their marriage and can face additional distress for their husbands seeming lack of interest.

Lots of individuals have different biological situations of differing severity and challenge. I do not think that it would be wise to characterize these high libido individuals of being “abused” by their libidos. Partly because I still want to believe in free will and personal choice.

skipper wrote:

But I also thing there were some very good LDS men that were good to their many wives. I certainly do not see it as one size fits all.

I recommend the book “In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith” by Todd Compton

Bro. Compton’s central thesis is that we are accustomed to thinking about polygamy as something more than monogamy but his research indicates that in most cases it was something far less. No matter how you attempt to do the math the wives were making do with a fraction of a husband. Even if that husband was wealthy and could provide financially, a wife wants and needs much more from her husband than a bank account. Even in the best circumstances for polygamous marriages, some of these needs went unmet. In some of these relationships, sister wives could band together and support one another and help fill the gaps. Still, much of the time the lived experiences of these women was more akin to the experience of single mothers or young widows with children still at home. Thus the title “Sacred Loneliness.”

[Anonymous]

skipper wrote:

It was a commandment for a 50-year duration so that there could be many LDS offspring. This parallels the Old Testament commandment. Nash points out the Book of Mormon underscore monogamy is the preferred commandments, and polygamy was just a short-term (50 years) commandment to raise LDS children.

To some women it was awful to other women it was joyful. Brigham Young allowed women to have easy divorces. Some men were righteous priesthood holders who did their best to be good husbands and fathers, and some were awful men preying on wanting to have sex with many women and could care less about being a good father.

I’m assuming that the book that you read was apologetic. I have compiled the following list of justifications for polygyny:

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

In our attempt to understand polygamy, we modern Mormons tend to focus on 1, 2, & 3. Ancient patriarchs did it. God commanded that we do it again for a time. In order to have lots of children (we tend to drop the part about the immanent second coming).

This is because from our modern vantage point 1) we know that the second coming didn’t happen then and seems to be further and further downplayed as we move along – why was it so urgent to have kids fast again? 2) the pre-mortal commitment stuff has challenging implications for free agency and is ripe for abuse from men trying to cajole women into marriage. 3) the greater glory thing is also challenging. If polygamy was just a temporary commandment for 50 years then why does polygamy need to exist forever in the CK. Do men with at least 3 wives attain a glory that monogamous men just cannot reach as BY taught? A recent version of the teacher’s seminary manual instructed the teachers not to speculate on whether or not polygamy is required to reach the highest level of the CK (instead of just a clear message that polygamy is not required to reach this level).

For me it is helpful to compartmentalize early Mormon theology and modern Mormon theology. I am a fan of using the Marvel and DC comic book universes as examples. They are similar and borrow ideas from each other but they are clearly separate worlds that work under separate rules. We can speculate on who would win in a fight, superman or captain marvel but ultimately we are comparing apples and oranges. This is how I see early Mormon theology and modern Mormon theology. They cannot be aligned because they come from different worlds.

[Author]

Posts