Polyandry question

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

If the prophet implemented that policy today, my wife would probably accept it because she adheres to the “follow the prophet” mantra.

I think there are many like your wife, Shawn, my wife included. As evidence we can see the gay policy – widely accepted even before Pres. Nelson claimed it was received by revelation and is the will of the Lord. I think the general active membership interprets all things coming from church headquarters as being the will of the Lord, as revelation, etc. They truly believe the prophet will never lead us astray and that the church is literally directed by Christ himself.

[Anonymous]

I suppose that even if it’s not codified into an official policy, there are many (most) of members that believe that apostasy is a justifiable reason for divorce.

When my sis-in-law found out I was having faith issues, she sent my wife a text that basically said as much.

[Anonymous]

I love Claudia Bushman’s response when she asked her husband (Richard Bushman – author of “rough stone rolling”) if he could promise not to ever practice polygamy. He said something to the effect that he had no desire, but couldn’t promise because if God told him he would have to obey. Her response was, “OK, then I promise I will do everything in my power to make your life hell if you do”. The way I remember her telling it, she wasn’t screaming it at him – just telling it like it is (or would be).

[Anonymous]

That sucks, Marty.

A couple months ago I told my wife that I didn’t want to pay tithing on my income. I reasoned that if she paid tithing on her income, it would be more than is necessary to pay a 10th of our surplus. She essentially told me that such a change would destroy our marriage and lead to divorce, so I backed off. She’s a great woman, but she is intolerant of my faith crisis.

Back to the subject. Regarding the “Husband Upgrade Policy,” there was a stipulation that the first husband had to consent to the deal according to sources found here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Brigham_Young/8_October_1861_discourse_on_plural_marriage.

James Beck recorded:

Quote:

Also there was another way in which a woman could leave a man if the woman preferred another man higher in authority & he is willing to take her & her husband gives her up there is no Bill of divorce required in the case it is right in the sight of God.

And George D. Watt recorded:

Quote:

If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of separation you can discover there is no need for a bill of divorcement. To recapitulate: First, a man forfeits his covenant with a wife or wives, becoming unfaithful to his God and his priesthood—that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second, if a woman claims protection at the hands of a man possessing more power in the priesthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife, he can do so without a bill of divorcement.

Does that make it okay. Heck no!

Back to the original question on this thread. Whether polyandry was sexual or not, there was absolutely no justification for it (much of the polygany that went on was not supported by Section 132, either). Consider this from Wilford Woodruff:

Quote:

When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me, “Have you not a father, who begot you?” “Yes, I have.”…When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers….What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this?

(Wilford Woodruff, April 8, 1894 General Conference, printed in Millennial Star Vol. 56, No. 22, May 28, 1894.)

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/MStar/id/20113/rec/56

The question is rhetorical, but I’ll answer it anyway. No one had any right to be sealed to a woman who was married to another man. I understand the argument that Joseph was commanded to institute polygamy and seal the human family together and then was left to figure out the details on his own, so he fumbled around with it doing his best, and then Woodruff clarified how it should be done and all is well. I don’t buy that at all. If an angel with a flaming sword appeared to tell Joseph he had to take additional wives, he certainly could have taken the time to explain he shouldn’t proposition women who are already married. In my opinion, it’s all rubbish.

[Anonymous]

It’s been a few months since I’ve posted actively, but this thread has pulled me back out of the woodwork. I couldn’t read this and not comment, because it hits very close to home. Marty and Shawn, your comments hit a nerve with me, and I feel your pain.

Shawn, hearing your wife say that she would support a doctrine that allowed women to ‘upgrade’ must have hurt. And, I agree that there are probably many who would go right along with it, simply because it came from the prophet. I can’t speak for the women in the church, but I would guess that this is how many of them must feel about the claim that it’s ‘okay’ for polygamy to be practiced during some periods but not others. To me, that feels like a cop-out, and a way to excuse the abomination of polygamy, instead of just saying that it never should have been practiced in the first place. But, women have been expected to accept that if polygamy was ‘commanded’ again, then their husbands would be free to marry additional wives. What a horrible thing to have to accept! But, if women have been expected to accept the doctrine of polygamy (even on a hypothetical level), and they’ve spent their whole lives being told that it’s okay if it’s commanded, then I can see how it would be easier for them to accept the ‘husband upgrade’ policy. Only when it’s flipped around on us like that, that we men really get a taste of how tough that must be for the women in the church to have polygamy hanging in the air. It’s a pretty disgusting doctrine, and I wish we, as a church, could just come out and say that it was a mistake from the very beginning and that it will never be practiced again. I’ve had enough of the excuses and justifications.

Marty, I can feel your pain when you talk about people acting like it’s okay to divorce somebody after a faith crisis. My wife moved out about 5 months ago, partly due to my faith crisis. I’ve talked with my bishop, my father (former bishop), my father-in-law (former bishop and currently on a mission), my brother-in-law (former bishop and current stake presidency counselor), and two of my past bishops about my faith crisis. All of them have been very understanding and supportive, and have been very willing to talk about things any time. But, my wife has been much less understanding of my questions. I’m still in church every week (even after the separation), still live an LDS lifestyle, still study, pray, etc. The only things I’ve really changed have been discontinuing temple attendance and wearing garments. But, my wife’s friends and female family members continue to talk to her about the importance of having a ‘worthy priesthood holder’ as a husband. One of her best friends is the wife of one of BKP’s grandsons, and she is one of the loudest voices in my wife’s ear calling for divorce over my ‘apostasy.’ Fortunately, all of the church leaders and male family members in my wife’s life are talking about the importance of free agency and saying that it’s okay to seek after truth, even if it causes confusion at times. I believe this is another one of those cultural problems in the church. We always hear, “Family first.” But, it seems to come with an understanding that family should only come first if they are strong, obedient members of the church. Otherwise, you’re free to go create a different family by seeking out a different, more ‘worthy’ companion. So, in a way, the husband upgrade policy is already in effect, just not on an official level. But, if a husband or wife divorces their unorthodox or inactive spouse, and they marry an active, so they can find an active, more ‘worthy’ partner, our church culture views it as a positive thing. And that’s just sad, and definitely isn’t putting family first. Sometimes our cultures and our doctrines aren’t in sync.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow, I appreciate your post.

Holy Cow wrote:

I can’t speak for the women in the church, but I would guess that this is how many of them must feel about the claim that it’s ‘okay’ for polygamy to be practiced during some periods but not others…But, if women have been expected to accept the doctrine of polygamy (even on a hypothetical level), and they’ve spent their whole lives being told that it’s okay if it’s commanded, then I can see how it would be easier for them to accept the ‘husband upgrade’ policy. Only when it’s flipped around on us like that, that we men really get a taste of how tough that must be for the women in the church to have polygamy hanging in the air.

That’s a great observation and it helps me have a bit more empathy for women in the church.

Holy Cow wrote:

But, my wife’s friends and female family members continue to talk to her about the importance of having a ‘worthy priesthood holder’ as a husband. One of her best friends is the wife of one of BKP’s grandsons, and she is one of the loudest voices in my wife’s ear calling for divorce over my ‘apostasy.’

Wow, this is upsetting! I want to preach a sermon to that women who is meddling with your marriage. I would point this out:

Quote:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. (NIV 1 Corinthians 7)

I would challenge her to show me any church teaching that says a faith crisis or leaving the church is a valid reason for divorce when the person is still good, kind, is otherwise faithful, and is not actively doing anything to lead others out of the church. I think she would not find any support for that view.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

Only when it’s flipped around on us like that, that we men really get a taste of how tough that must be for the women in the church to have polygamy hanging in the air.

That’s when I realized how messed up polygamy was (and that was like 2 years ago). Up until then, I kept telling myself that the ladies really like it.

LookingHard wrote:

Her response was, “OK, then I promise I will do everything in my power to make your life hell if you do”

Like constantly quoting third-hand historical accounts as facts

Holy Cow wrote:

My wife moved out about 5 months ago, partly due to my faith crisis.

Sorry to hear, man. Don’t get me wrong, I worry a lot about the possibility of the “D” word, but wife is actually very open-minded and accepting. But, as is expected, it’s been very hard for her to swallow. Her faith isn’t the naive type – it was earned with years of trials and difficulties. She’s read the CES letter and Rough Stone Rolling, so she’s not exactly sticking her head in the sand. She just wishes I could brush issues aside like she does.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

But, if women have been expected to accept the doctrine of polygamy (even on a hypothetical level), and they’ve spent their whole lives being told that it’s okay if it’s commanded, then I can see how it would be easier for them to accept the ‘husband upgrade’ policy. Only when it’s flipped around on us like that, that we men really get a taste of how tough that must be for the women in the church to have polygamy hanging in the air.

Yes. If you don’t mind me being extremely blunt I’ll shoot from my hip. I can imagine a scenario where the husband upgrade policy was only put in place to placate women that were rightfully upset about polygamy. The policy got some women to stop complaining but there was never any intention of putting it into practice. It was just something to convince someone that they were on “equal” footing. Who made that promise? A leader that held a calling that was in a position to “collect” more women. Sounds like another sexist policy that favored the males disguised as throwing a bone to the women. Wasn’t there, don’t know, just a guess.

You also touched on another thing that’s been doing laps inside my head for a while now.

Polygamy? Mmm hmm, mmm hmm. Well… okay I guess.

Polyandry? WHAT 👿 WHAT 👿 WHAT?!?!?!

That phenomenon can be telling.

Holy Cow wrote:

We always hear, “Family first.” But, it seems to come with an understanding that family should only come first if they are strong, obedient members of the church. Otherwise, you’re free to go create a different family by seeking out a different, more ‘worthy’ companion. So, in a way, the husband upgrade policy is already in effect, just not on an official level. But, if a husband or wife divorces their unorthodox or inactive spouse, and they marry an active, so they can find an active, more ‘worthy’ partner, our church culture views it as a positive thing. And that’s just sad, and definitely isn’t putting family first. Sometimes our cultures and our doctrines aren’t in sync.

Yeah, unfortunately that is the case for many people.

This quote from Linda Burton’s April 2015 GC talk hit facebook as a meme before she even said amen:

Quote:

I am convinced that a husband is never more attractive to his wife than when he is serving in his God-given roles as a worthy priesthood holder—most important in the home.

We really do have a serious cultural problem in this area. It cuts both ways, husbands separating from their wife over faith issues and wives separating from their husband over faith issues.

[Anonymous]

We want to be seen by ourselves and the world as marriage’s biggest advocate. How on earth can we expect that when we stubbornly insist that all these poly-X,Y,Z arrangements were God’s will? They are so down-graded. Women being traded around; alpha males calling the shots for everyone, male and female. I’m glad we were a record-keeping people and hope that as more of it comes out, we will finally consider the possibility that, by and large, this was a horrible experiment, NOT God’s-plan-presently-on-hold.

I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere saying that traditional marriage is sacred, and so was polygamy.

Quote:

I am convinced that a husband is never more attractive to his wife than when he is serving in his God-given roles as a worthy priesthood holder—most important in the home.

I cringed when she said this. It seemed so calculated. (And I say this as a woman who is thankful for my husband’s devotion.) The way she is expressing this isn’t constructive, I think.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Shawn wrote:

If the prophet implemented that policy today, my wife would probably accept it because she adheres to the “follow the prophet” mantra.

I think there are many like your wife, Shawn, my wife included. As evidence we can see the gay policy – widely accepted even before Pres. Nelson claimed it was received by revelation and is the will of the Lord. I think the general active membership interprets all things coming from church headquarters as being the will of the Lord, as revelation, etc. They truly believe the prophet will never lead us astray and that the church is literally directed by Christ himself.

This topic has me fired up. My wife is also one who believes that the prophet would never lead us astray and would go along with polygamy, polyandry, the husband upgrade policy, or who knows what if it came from a prophet of God.

Marty, Shawn, and Holy Cow, I feel for you. My wife knows of my faith crisis, but I don’t think she really has any idea how deep it runs. I’ve tried to open up to her about it, but it has not gone well – ever. She has told me that if she had to choose between me and the Church, she would choose the Church, and that if I left the Church, she would leave me. I love her so much, and would never want that to happen. I really think it would. She has left before, but only for a few days at a time. I don’t doubt that she would leave me for good and upgrade to a more righteous and believing husband if I left the Church.

Quote:

Holy Cow wrote:

We always hear, “Family first.” But, it seems to come with an understanding that family should only come first if they are strong, obedient members of the church. Otherwise, you’re free to go create a different family by seeking out a different, more ‘worthy’ companion. So, in a way, the husband upgrade policy is already in effect, just not on an official level. But, if a husband or wife divorces their unorthodox or inactive spouse, and they marry an active, so they can find an active, more ‘worthy’ partner, our church culture views it as a positive thing. And that’s just sad, and definitely isn’t putting family first. Sometimes our cultures and our doctrines aren’t in sync.

Amen, brother! The God and Jesus I believe in would never counsel a faithful spouse to leave a doubting spouse to leave unless there was abuse or some other such thing happening.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

We really do have a serious cultural problem in this area. It cuts both ways, husbands separating from their wife over faith issues and wives separating from their husband over faith issues.

Freudian slip? It does happen that women lose faith and their husbands divorce them…

[Anonymous]

faithfulskeptic wrote:

Amen, brother! The God and Jesus I believe in would never counsel a faithful spouse to leave a doubting spouse to leave unless there was abuse or some other such thing happening.

1 Cor 7:13-16 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

It’s scriptural not to leave a disbelieving spouse.

[Anonymous]

Like!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

marty wrote:

1 Cor 7:13-16 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

It’s scriptural not to leave a disbelieving spouse.

Yes! Now will someone tell DW? Maybe I could mark that scripture and leave it open for her to see?

[Author]

Posts