Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

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.

I knew this entry was coming and thought I had braced for it. I feel more distance opening up between me and my church. It seems that it will justify to its last breath a practice that is on its face sexist and unfair. I do understand that these are our ancestors, but the article is still strikes me as lawyerly, passive, “scholarly” when it suits (“fertility at the societal level”, “the monogamous nuclear family now well-suited to an increasingly mobile and dispersed membership,” etc.), and crystal clear about the bottom line: God commanded this and a woman should not view herself as meriting a monogamous relationship with her husband. The watchword is unselfishness, sisters. Can’t accept the concept that God could, at any moment, command your husband to open up your marriage to several other women? You must not be very Christlike. To my mind it doesn’t matter that the church will never return to polygamy. We’ve never really left. Girls come to their mothers and the mothers cushion the blow with whatever they do to minimize, rationalize, justify, contextualize and explain. Mine did.

[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.

I think WW had a revelation of exactly that happening, the destruction of the church. By the time the manifesto was issued all church properties had been confiscated by the government, women who had the franchise lost it and men were disenfranchised as well. He did the right thing and if someone thinks he should have done differently then imagine the church today looking a bit like Colorado City and not all that much bigger.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think there’s any question on whether or not he did the right thing.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I don’t think there’s any question on whether or not he did the right thing.

Yes he did the rigth thing. But late. We believe in obeying the laws of the land — it is one of our core articles of faith. My point is that it took the confiscation of lands and temporal hardship to finally convince him to live up to that article of faith. it shows that the church does bow to outside pressure, and in many respects, is no different than any other temporal organization. Although i agree with Ray that the motive is not greed, I think it’s pretty clear that the church is willing to sacrifice widely publicized doctrine and spiritual doctrines when such claims interefere with its temporal success and survival. I also believe the plural marriage thing is another example of the church putting its own success (rapid population growth) ahead of the needs of the women. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to envision your husband sleeping with another woman — and having your personal character on trial as a christlike or selfless woman at stake if you don’t smilingly agree to it. Yes, we have taken the commitment of our members for granted at many points in our history — often placing their mental and spiritual health a distant second to the church’s desire for self-preservation.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I don’t think there’s any question on whether or not he did the right thing.

I also believe the plural marriage thing is another example of the church putting its own success (rapid population growth) ahead of the needs of the women.

I don’t think that the goal of polygamy was rapid population growth and I’m not even sure it was a side benefit/effect and I don’t believe it was a conscious decision to sacrifice one for the other. I’m not going to argue that the principle didn’t harm women though hearing LDS women’s leadership singing it’s praises does make you wonder what was going on. The only reading I’ve ever done is Annie Clark Tanner’s autobiography “A Mormon Mother” and seeing the immediate and far reaching effects especially during the late years when people were on the underground shows polygamy as a bad idea that got worse with time.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know — the Book of Mormon states the purpose is to “raise up seed unto me” [the Lord speaking]. I think the most recent article on the plural marriage history also mentions that God commands it at certain times [for this purpose] — but I need to check if that is explicitly mentioned. Even if it doesn’t it was pretty clear from the Book of Mormon that we a doctrinal basis for plural marriage as a way of fueling population growth and its corollary — sustaining large families. This helps the church by promoting growth from within.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century.

This implies that ultimately those who practiced it did so through blind obedience or because of cultural influence, which I have trouble honoring (though I empathize with their plight).

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“raise up seed unto me”

Breaking out the parser’s pen:

That phrase does not have to mean “increase population”. In fact, the actual wording says and implies exactly nothing about increased population. Seriously, read it without that assumption, and you’ll see it’s not there. That interpretation came about as one of the justifications for polygamy by members, but it isn’t in the phrase above.

That phrase might mean “have children who are dedicated strongly to God“. It’s much like Samuel’s mother dedicating her son “unto God” and “raising him up” with that promise in mind.

As bad as polygamy was in lots of ways, I think it’s hard to argue that it didn’t strengthen dedication among the early Saints who were part of it.

It also might mean “create a unique people who are dedicated to God“.

That would fit Joseph’s idea of restored Israel – or the creation of a new Israel, if you will. If nothing else, the way polygamy created a communal, linked ancestry can lead people to see the LDS Church from about 1850-1950 as a unique people. I’ve seen non-Mormon historians make that observation in more than one publication.

[Anonymous]

I am still in the middle of reading “In Sacred Loneliness” and have read much of church history. It is almost impossible for me to believe that JS did not have a sex addiction problem. He went against what he, himself said in D&C 132 about how the 1st wife must approve and to espouse a virgin. He did neither. He did so much behind Emma’s back and hurt her deeply when she found out.

Admin Note:

[This thread is NOT about Joseph or polygamy during his lifetime. We have lots of threads about that topic.

Also, links to sites that are established specifically to cast Joseph and the LDS Church in the worst light possible are not allowed here. Thus, the link and the information from it have been deleted.]

[Anonymous]

I believe that I understand many of the “theories” put forward for the justification of polygamy.

Some of these theories are just plain wrong on their face. Others will only work if we devalue women as being equal to men.

Part of the problem is that JS gave multiple reasons for polygamy. I had at one time compiled the following list of justifications that could reasonably be traced back to JS:

Polygyny Justifications of JS

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. 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 (D&C 132:63).

3. 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.” 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

4. 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

5. To “restore” an Old Testament practice. (Acts 3:21; D&C 132:40, 45).

I find this list interesting in part because # 3 and # 4 are somewhat incompatible with our modern LDS theology.

Quote:

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century.

This statement reminds me of similar statements about the priesthood ban a decade or so ago. (IOW the commandment comes from God, the explanations come largely from men).

I believe that, taking the evidence as a whole, polygamy was not in harmony with eternal truth and fits under the category Pres. Uchtdorf recently described

Quote:

“There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine…. imperfect people make mistakes.”

[Anonymous]

Thanks Roy!

[Anonymous]

In addition to my earlier comment:

The last paragraph of this article is just troubling to me. It seems like nothing but an attempt at saving face. In the quote below, I have mirrored the statements from the article with hypothetical statements to help illustrate why the logic bothers me so much.

…edit….

I removed my original comment since I realize I was shooting from the hip. Institutionally supported polygamy as it pertains to our history just really rubs me the wrong way. I have never seen a compelling justification that couldn’t have been solved outside of marriage. Period. If widowed or single women needed temporal support, give them support, but you don’t have to marry them all off. The “raising up seed” justifications just seem egocentric and silly. The reference I made that was harsh merely pointed to the “God commanded it” justification, which feeds, IMO, what is one of the greatest cancers in organized religion: blind faith.

…end of edit…

I know this seems really harsh, but I have to call it how I see it.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Quote:

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century.

This statement reminds me of similar statements about the priesthood ban a decade or so ago. (IOW the commandment comes from God, the explanations come largely from men).

I believe that, taking the evidence as a whole, polygamy was not in harmony with eternal truth and fits under the category Pres. Uchtdorf recently described

Quote:

“There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine…. imperfect people make mistakes.”

I think the church will eventually back away from polygamy as having been God’s express commandment. But considering the fact (I think I looked this up once in an obsessed mood) that Lorenzo Snow’s granddaughter died in 2011, it still hits too close to home. Time’s a-wastin’, though, and I choose to back away now.

(And, for what it’s worth, I would never compare anyone involved to terrorists.)

[Anonymous]

Admin Note:

Yes, that is really harsh, Matt – and it can be said about almost anything with which someone disagrees, religious or not, done out of a sense of conviction. There are people here who see no good in polygamy and its outcomes whatsoever, but the people who lived it did so out of a sense of devotion and commitment (men and women both) – and NOBODY KILLED ANYBODY ELSE in practicing it.

There is a common saying that once a comparison to Hitler is made in a conversation, that conversation is over. The same can be said about invoking suicide bombers. Hopefully, that isn’t the case here, but that sort of comparison leaves no room for discussion. It ends, or this thread ends.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

“raise up seed unto me”

Breaking out the parser’s pen:

That phrase does not have to mean “increase population”. In fact, the actual wording says and implies exactly nothing about increased population. Seriously, read it without that assumption, and you’ll see it’s not there. That interpretation came about as one of the justifications for polygamy by members, but it isn’t in the phrase above.

That phrase might mean “have children who are dedicated strongly to God“. It’s much like Samuel’s mother dedicating her son “unto God” and “raising him up” with that promise in mind.

As bad as polygamy was in lots of ways, I think it’s hard to argue that it didn’t strengthen dedication among the early Saints who were part of it.

It also might mean “create a unique people who are dedicated to God“.

That would fit Joseph’s idea of restored Israel – or the creation of a new Israel, if you will. If nothing else, the way polygamy created a communal, linked ancestry can lead people to see the LDS Church from about 1850-1950 as a unique people. I’ve seen non-Mormon historians make that observation in more than one publication.

Ray — I think you can parse this a number of ways. If all it meant is to raise up a rigtheous generation, without any implications for population growth, then why have more than one wife? The fact that its about multiple wives to me clearly implies that its about scale, growth, and increased seed in the church — on a rapid growth model. Your interpretations both seem a bit of a stretch to me. I don’t mean that argumentatively, by the way.

[Author]

Posts