Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty sure this just came out as the newest “tough gospel topics” essay.

http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

Thoughts?

Here are my initial ones:

Positive:

-It dispells some of the myths within our own culture about it – like that there were way more women than men, or that everyone did it grudgingly, or that it was for all the widows.

-It openly admits polygamy was practiced after the Manifesto. (Wasn’t someone ex-ed for writing a book about this??)

-It actually gives some fairly reasonable arguments for why plural marriage helped the LDS community overall, instead of just pulling the “we don’t know why” card.

Negative:

-I wish it gave a little more historical context or interpretation for its origins with Joseph Smith and his understanding of it, especially his practice of polyandry. I’ve never really had a huge issue with polygamy is a general principle. Anyone who gets into the nitty gritty even a little bit, has to admit there is some pretty funky stuff going on with Joseph Smith’s specific practice of it, enough to make people question. So either this was a deliberate whitewash or (I sincerely hope) there is a forthcoming essay devoted just to Joseph Smith’s understanding and practice of it.

One of the reasons I hold out hope for this is that the title of the article is pretty specific – it seems to just want to zero in on how it was practiced in early Utah, versus how JS practiced it. Also, although some of these essays may not have gone as far as some people have hoped, I REALLY appreciate that there is some serious attempts being made at historical interpretation, and none of these essays so far have resorted to the pitiful “we don’t know why or how” line. That’s a mark of a good historian.

[Anonymous]

Very disappointed, but not surprised. Feeling pretty pessimistic right now. They’ll probably follow up with a “no one complained” article about JS’s polygamy/polyandry and be done with it.

[Anonymous]

This was part of a historical series that deals with early Utah. It doesn’t address directly pre-Utah years, which is why the scope is so limited. The new material is being added as it is completed, so it’s not chronological. The earlier years will be added when they are done – and they are more complicated, which probably is why this was was finished first.

[Anonymous]

I do like how it dispels some myths about polygamy. I personally like how it gives some apparently factual demographic information on how widespread the practice was and how it was decreasing over time. I also like how it acknowledges that Wilford Woodruff was “inspired” and there was no apparent visitation of the Lord to end the practice. I am not at all convinced there was a revelation instituting the practice to begin with to begin with, and although it’s really outside the scope of the article they do make a point of it and the expectation of belief even though the actual practice wasn’t expected of everyone.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I do like how it dispels some myths about polygamy. I personally like how it gives some apparently factual demographic information on how widespread the practice was and how it was decreasing over time. I also like how it acknowledges that Wilford Woodruff was “inspired” and there was no apparent visitation of the Lord to end the practice. I am not at all convinced there was a revelation instituting the practice to begin with to begin with, and although it’s really outside the scope of the article they do make a point of it and the expectation of belief even though the actual practice wasn’t expected of everyone.

I have always believed Woodruff ended the practice because the government threatened to confiscate the church’s lands and property. Money and wealth is big deal to the LDS church as my life’s experiences have demonstrated. It was only when the government was about to confiscate their earthly wealth that the “revelation” came. If you read the manifesto, I think that is one of the reasons given for ending the practice (will have to check).

The article is pretty tame in my view. I don’t think anyone debates whether plural marriage happened, and the description of what it was like back then doesn’t really address the key stumbling block for most people who have a problem with it — that it occurred in the first place.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I do like how it dispels some myths about polygamy. I personally like how it gives some apparently factual demographic information on how widespread the practice was and how it was decreasing over time. I also like how it acknowledges that Wilford Woodruff was “inspired” and there was no apparent visitation of the Lord to end the practice. I am not at all convinced there was a revelation instituting the practice to begin with to begin with, and although it’s really outside the scope of the article they do make a point of it and the expectation of belief even though the actual practice wasn’t expected of everyone.

I have always believed Woodruff ended the practice because the government threatened to confiscate the church’s lands and property. Money and wealth is big deal to the LDS church as my life’s experiences have demonstrated. It was only when the government was about to confiscate their earthly wealth that the “revelation” came. If you read the manifesto, I think that is one of the reasons given for ending the practice (will have to check).

I wholeheartedly agree. The ending of the practice was much more political than spiritual. There was indeed that threat of confiscating church property, and Utah wanted to be a state. Yet, I think a poll of most active members would reveal that they believe the manifesto was the result of direct revelation to the prophet in the temple. The introduction to OD1 at LDS.org says it was a revelation, and the notes from Wilford Woodruff in the D&C also state it was a revelation (among many according to Woodruff). Maybe I’m blowing this out of proportion, but I see revelation and inspiration as different things – perhaps connected at times, but different. I’m not sure this article jives with other church documents.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

This was part of a historical series that deals with early Utah. It doesn’t address directly pre-Utah years, which is why the scope is so limited. The new material is being added as it is completed, so it’s not chronological. The earlier years will be added when they are done – and they are more complicated, which probably is why this was was finished first.

I can see that the church is trying to address a lot of internet related issues simultaneously here. For example, the church has received heavy criticism on the Internet about its tendency to whitewash history. Further, the church can’t whitewash anymore given the reach of the Internet. I think this series addresses these whitewashing concerns to some extent.

Same with the admissions of polyandry and now, the disavowal of the priesthood ban. Perhaps the church is learning its better to be transparent about its history — and based on the reactions I’m seeing from TBM’s and the disaffected on the disavowal, it appears to create a net positive effect or neutral effect on commitment. I am tempted to write a headline that says “LDS Church learns that transparency is the best policy”. I wanted to write the headline that says “LDS Church learns that Honesty is the Best Policy” but that is a bit too edgy and implies there was active deception, which I’m not sure if the case. So, transparency is a better word.

[Anonymous]

My understanding is that this is part of a series on polygamy, and this is the Part 2. Part 1 isn’t ready yet because it is thornier and deals with the JS era where so much was secretive and there are conflicting accounts of what happened. The guys who are working on this stuff are doing it using actual, best available source documents, which is completely unlike correlation’s approach for decades. We are going to get the most faithful history we can get, warts and all, but from the church’s perspective (therefore believing) while dispelling untenable myths. I do have hope they will do a decent job of it, and it’s a mess they’ve inherited, most of them directly. I still, however, find that nothing anyone can say about polygamy makes it acceptable to me, although I honor the sacrifices of those who felt duty bound to do it.

[Anonymous]

Not all members were expected to participate, but the common belief was that the practice was required to reach the highest level of the Celestial kingdom. I think that much should be known. It may even be argued that the concept of “eternal families” only applied to polygamous families – at least according to the interpretation of some members in those days.

I also wish at a minimum they used “most” instead of “some” here:

Quote:

some wives long[ed] for the sustained companionship of their husbands

I would also argue that their deepest longing was for more than companionship, it was for the emotional security of fidelity in marriage – in other words faithful monogamous marriage.

Of course this is my opinion, but from my perspective a high probability has been demonstrated that more wives than expressed themselves had an intense personal strife and difficulty with the practice. Their religious sense of responsibility kept them from voicing their displeasure, or at least from being recorded speaking it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I have always believed Woodruff ended the practice because the government threatened to confiscate the church’s lands and property. Money and wealth is big deal to the LDS church . . .

SD, fwiw, I think that exact wording (the second sentence as a motivating factor in the first) is uncharitable in context. If I am threatened with having everything confiscated that supports my life and the lives of my family – and being jailed, so I can’t start again in supporting them – and seeing my religion exterminated, “money and wealth” isn’t going to the be issue that drives me (especially in a time of general hardship and relative poverty). Continued existence, freedom and not seeing my family starve or face severe deprivation are going to be foremost on my mind.

Of course, polygamy ended for the reason you mention. OD1 says that explicitly. I would have NO problem with it ending for that reason, even if I believed it was God’s pure will – and I think even the most ardent traditionalists who remained in the Church accepted that as a justifiable reason. To say it was to retain money and wealth . . .

Let’s just say I disagree with that wording as anything close to the primary reason polygamy ended. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it probably wasn’t on their minds, as worded, at the time.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I have always believed Woodruff ended the practice because the government threatened to confiscate the church’s lands and property. Money and wealth is big deal to the LDS church . . .

SD, fwiw, I think that exact wording (the second sentence as a motivating factor in the first) is uncharitable in context. If I am threatened with having everything confiscated that supports my life and the lives of my family – and being jailed, so I can’t start again in supporting them – and seeing my religion exterminated, “money and wealth” isn’t going to the be issue that drives me (especially in a time of general hardship and relative poverty). Continued existence, freedom and not seeing my family starve or face severe deprivation are going to be foremost on my mind.

Of course, polygamy ended for the reason you mention. OD1 says that explicitly. I would have NO problem with it ending for that reason, even if I believed it was God’s pure will – and I think even the most ardent traditionalists who remained in the Church accepted that as a justifiable reason. To say it was to retain money and wealth . . .

Let’s just say I disagree with that wording as anything close to the primary reason polygamy ended. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it probably wasn’t on their minds, as worded, at the time.

It was definitely on their minds – and I consider it a key tipping point. If you check the D&C (I just read it), Woodruff mentioned the loss of property and lands over and over again as a major factor (as you metnion). The loss of property, temples was a factor in this, no question. Sure there were other factors, but I have noticed that when temporal concerns conflict with spiritual concerns, the church tends to side with the temporal — at least, in my experience that’s true — far more than I think is healthy for an organization with a divine commission.

They also let a lot of brethren go to prison for staying true to the plural marriage “doctrine” before they came out with the manifesto. I also think the church defaults to making the members sacrifice as a way of acheiving their own temporal ends far too quickly for my liking.

We can agree to disagree though. I maintain that temporal matters and money are hugely important to the church. More important than I am comfortable with. Take a societal problem, or a trend in society, and punctuate it with a business loss to the church (loss of membership, loss of property, expense to the budget, inability to expand) and you see faster action. Demonstrating commitment to values is a secondary consideration in many of these decisions to the church.

i also recognize I’m driven by my life’s experiences when temporal, NOW matters conflict with church values. In my experience, they have sided with the temporal side every time. I tend to see things through that lens.

you can invoke the “seeing through a glass darkly” maxim here…but I simply cannot deny my life’s experiences. And I tend to interpret history through those experiences. Money is a big deal to the church. Take a problem and attach money, property, and church temporal interests to it — it becomes a source of focus for the church. I can quote example, after example, after example.

[Anonymous]

I never said losing all the property of the Church wasn’t an issue. It was THE central issue, since it would have meant the destruction of the Church itself. OD1 says that, and I understand that.

What I said is that to term their primary concern as preserving “wealth and money” doesn’t represent what they were facing. If they could have maintained their property, including the meetinghouses and the temples (which absolutely were NOT money-makers in any way imaginable at the time), and their identity as organized, practicing Mormons, I think they might have continued to resist – even if that meant returning to a state of poverty. After all, they had endured that for decades.

Whether or not Pres. Woodruff received revelation (and I have no problem labeling his experience as revelation, given what that word can mean), they didn’t face losing “wealth and money” as their primary issue. The way you worded it makes greed sound like the primary motivating factor, and I simply can’t see greed as their primary motivating factor – or, in that situation, as much of a factor at all. They faced losing everything that constituted being a church and an organized religion (and united families) – literally, the elimination of their religion and religious lives in practical terms. At the most basic level, they wanted “The Church” to survive and continue, even if that meant giving up polygamy.

That’s all I’m saying.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I never said losing all the property of the Church wasn’t an issue. It was THE central issue, since it would have meant the destruction of the Church itself. OD1 says that, and I understand that.

What I said is that to term their primary concern as preserving “wealth and money” doesn’t represent what they were facing. If they could have maintained their property, including the meetinghouses and the temples (which absolutely were NOT money-makers in any way imaginable at the time), and their identity as organized, practicing Mormons, I think they might have continued to resist – even if that meant returning to a state of poverty. After all, they had endured that for decades.

Whether or not Pres. Woodruff received revelation (and I have no problem labeling his experience as revelation, given what that word can mean), they didn’t face losing “wealth and money” as their primary issue. The way you worded it makes greed sound like the primary motivating factor, and I simply can’t see greed as their primary motivating factor – or, in that situation, as much of a factor at all. They faced losing everything that constituted being a church and an organized religion (and united families) – literally, the elimination of their religion and religious lives in practical terms. At the most basic level, they wanted “The Church” to survive and continue, even if that meant giving up polygamy.

That’s all I’m saying.

I wouldn’t say, or mean to imply it was greed. first, of all, as far as I know, no one benefits personally from the wealth of the church, although I believe high-ranking leaders probably get a decent standard of living for their full time service. But even that is speculation, and not a motive for greed.

What I am saying is that temporal matters are very important to the church. More important than the spiritual in many cases (in my experience). And more than I am comfortable with.

Small case in point — as a HPGL I had 200 families to see, and only 14 companionships, of which only a handful were actually functioning. I sent letters to the inactives each month, which our Bishop indicated made a difference. He was fine with sending the letters to get forwarding addressses, stay in touch with the flock, etcetera…provided I paid for it personally.

As soon as I asked him to include money in the budget for it the next year — it was no longer important to fund letters — unless I kept doing it out of my own pocket.

And then — the crowning moment — the Ward clerk tells me the Bishop runs a surplus on the budget AND SENDS MONEY BACK TO ITS SOURCE (The stake or salt lake) AT THE END OF THE YEAR….

I realize this is only one experience, but I have seen this tendency to drop spiritual, higher values when there is tension between preserving temporal interests and furthering spiritual ones. They are not greedy, but they are egocentric and more self-preservationist than I think is necessary or inspiring.

I think the hard time the church had surviving in its early days created a very egocentric view of the church, a strong self-preservationist tendency that tips the scales whenever temporal/legal’/and monetary issues are at stake….like the fact we have one sit down meeting that focuses on ONE commandment each year — Tithing Settlement.

That sticks out like a sore thumb to me. If spiritual matters were really all that important, then why not “Family Home Evening Review” or “Scripture REading progress meetings” or “Personal Prayer Encouragement” meeting. But no — the only sit down meeting on a single commandment is over money.

Attach a threat to the temporal affairs of the church, and you get action and policy.

I listed these in another thread today in the Bowing to pressure thread. I think they bow to societal pressure a lot faster when their temporal assets are at stake.

There are times I wish I could just start over in the church and miss the personal history that has influenced the way I see the church’s decision-making when spiritual and temporal interests conflict.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that clarification, SD. I don’t disagree strongly with any of that.

I just wanted to make sure the wording didn’t misrepresent what you meant when other people read it. 🙂

[Anonymous]

I’m glad they keep publishing these. I’m hopeful of where it’s headed towards. I was pretty underwhelmed by this article. I thought the other two were much more impressive.

Having said that… after a year or two of studying these things on a weekly basis I’d probably only be impressed if they republished the whole MormonThink website with the negative spin kept in! I’m probably over-saturated in church history to be ready see how big of a step these articles are.

[Author]

Posts