- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Polygamy I have no problem with this doctrine as the precedence is available in the Old Testament. Abraham descendants who follows the Islam religion practice polygamy Polyandry my problem is found in the book by In Sacred Loneliness The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith.
I found the sad story of Henry Jacobs being told to forget pursuing Zina Diantha Huntington by Brigham Young saying that she was a plural wife of Joseph so he will take the responsibilty for her yes but Joseph took Zina after she was sealed to Henry Jacobs. The church teaches the importance of family unity but what is this example. It is also interesting to note that Brigham Young said a statement that he would rather be in a coffin than practice polygamy.
What is your take on this.
This topic has been discussed a lot here, so, as I tend to do, I will provide links to some of the longest threads on it: “Trying to Make Sense of Joseph Smith”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=125&hilit=polygamy “Did Joseph Smith Found or Fight Polygamy?”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1064&hilit=polygamy “The Polygamy Problem”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=603&hilit=polygamy “Uh-Oh, I opened up the polygamy can of worms”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=298&hilit=polygamy There are other posts about polygamy in our archives, but these are a good start to see how others have answered your question. Feel free to comment more on this post and/or add a comment to another post and bump it up for further discussion.
There are lots of things that happened in the OT that we do not do anymore. I believe OT polygamy to be a societal construct that God tolerated or even ignored, but did not institute. Polyandry is further bewildering.
Regardless of any theological backing, the actual practice of polygamy seems to be very hard on the individuals involved (as Brother Compton suggests with his title “In Sacred Loneliness”).
No matter how else I see it, I think it is pretty clear that almost nobody “wanted” to participate in polygamy at the time – and that, in the end, the majority of members never did participate. (I also think it’s interesting to see the abuses that have flourished in some of the break-away communities led by men who appear to have wanted to participate and who insisted that everyone participate. I know that doesn’t apply to all modern polygamist groups, but I think it’s an important distinction between those that are abusive and those that aren’t.) Most of the early LDS members who did participate saw it as their own great Abrahamic test – and we are talking in another thread about how we view those types of tests.
I can’t bring myself to say I believe it was wicked or totally wrong, since, in distant hindsight, I can see some results that actually might have been / probably were beneficial to the Church as an organization (and since there is scriptural precedent in both the OT and the BofM) – but I mostly am left with being glad I live now and not then.
I don’t understand why polygamy would be okay, but polyandry not be. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I actually have much less of a problem with JS polyandry society, than I have with BY polygamy society. I think JS was just trying out some transcendental ideas of the time, and perhaps understood the concept of spiritual “free love” if you will. I think BY was a sexist pig, who took advantage of his position as prophet to… well. You know where I’m going with this.
to cwald I really like your comment about BY being a sexist pig. Poor Henry Jacobs losing the true love of his life to prophets twice.
Thanks to all who took the time to answers my post.
maverick wrote:to cwald
I really like your comment about BY being a sexist pig. Poor Henry Jacobs losing the true love of his life to prophets twice.
I just call it the way I see it —- no need to mince words.
Hi cwald I have no issue taking it literally for I think he is really a sexist pig for taking somebody else wife knowing full well that Henry Jacobs has been begging for his dear wife to return to him. The other thing that is beyond me about this whole issue of polygamy that the church practice is sending the husband away on missions and then the leaders would go after their wives once the husband is gone. Take the case of Orson Hyde and Marinda Hyde. Wlliard Richards is also link to her.There maybe other story out there.
I am just trying to be honest really with things that bothers me about my faith.
Other than tests of loyalty, why would prophets back then take the wives of other men when they could be sealed to their husbands??? And were these relationships physical as well as spiritual? Some sealings were literal, traditional marriages (especially once “Utah polygamy” was established, obviously); many sealings weren’t traditional marriages in any way that matters. They simply were sealings. Also, I’m going to say something that really shouldn’t surprise anyone, but I do think it needs to be said:
I don’t think there is any reasonable way to say that Brigham Young wasn’t sexist and racist. I literally can’t see any way to make that claim with any degree of legitimacy. Imo, he was – and it’s obvious.
However . . .
He was a product of his time, and he wasn’t any more sexist or racist than the VAST majority of the people in that time. For that reason alone, I think it’s incorrect and “wrong” to classify him as “a sexist pig”. That term carries connotations of over-the-top, abnormal sexism and “filthiness” – and, when you look at many of the things Pres. Young actually said and did regarding women, it’s just as unreasonable to say he was “piggish” in his sexism.
He encouraged women to be educated – and even to be educated formally outside of Utah; he talked sometimes of polygamy resulting in fewer children per wife, which left more time for mothers to have professions outside the home (which he also encouraged); the Relief Society was perhaps at its strongest during his presidency; there is no evidence whatsoever that he abused his wives in any way or spoke badly about them; there is no evidence that he viewed polygamy as fundamentally about sexual license; etc.
So, while I have absolutely no problem recognizing that, by our own standards, he was sexist, I have a really hard time accepting that he was “a sexist pig”. I disagree strongly with that and just wanted to explain why.
Yes, Ray. I regret saying he was a pig in this forum. I should have stopped with just sexist. I have real issues with the guy. I just cannot condone what he did — used his power, his position to guilt and acquire other men’s wives, and live a life that by today’s standards would qualify as basically having a “harem.” He suppressed these women, and caused a lot of pain, and the fact that it was legal or “the norm” of his time just doesn’t make me feel any better about it. I mean, this guy IS GOD’S PROPHET. The guy — speaking to god to get direction for the world. And he just goes with the flow of sexism and racism of his time? Hmmmm?
At least Joseph Smith let the women play the game to some degree. Transcend from the spiritual norms. It wasn’t nearly as repressive IMO. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If polygamy is okay, a celestial law – than polyandry should be as well.
Again, why would he ask for the wives of married men, interrupting THE men’s ability to be sealed for eternity? That is the part I don’t get. Even if the men were not currently worthy to enter into the new and everlasting covenant, the atonement makes it possible for them to do so eventually…so I don’t understand why prophets felt they could ask for the wives of other men– anyhone have a good answer? SilentDawning wrote:Again, why would he ask for the wives of married men, interrupting THE men’s ability to be sealed for eternity? That is the part I don’t get.
Joseph’s exploration of sealing and binding people together never seemed to have quite solidified before his death.
This questions asks why we can’t seem to overlay our current understanding of sealing on the historical events we are talking about in the past. The answer: because the square peg doesn’t fit in the round hole. Our current notions of temple marriage are very different than the early exploration into ideas of the “sealing” of the whole human family into one long chain or bond. We are surprised by the way Joseph acted. I think he would be equally surprised to see where we ran with his ideas (or his “revelations” on the matter).
SilentDawning wrote:Again, why would he ask for the wives of married men, interrupting THE men’s ability to be sealed for eternity? That is the part I don’t get. Even if the men were not currently worthy to enter into the new and everlasting covenant, the atonement makes it possible for them to do so eventually…so I don’t understand why prophets felt they could ask for the wives of other men– anyone have a good answer?
If these were spiritual/dynastic/communal sealings without a physical component wherein the whole community “becomes one,” then it might make sense to invite whoever they felt was prepared to make the spiritual commitment (and that might also mean inviting one spouse first and then later inviting the other).
Old-Timer wrote:Some sealings were literal, traditional marriages (especially once “Utah polygamy” was established, obviously); many sealings weren’t traditional marriages in any way that matters. They simply were sealings.
OTOH, even some sealings that didn’t include a sexual component were much more than just a spiritual ritual. Helen Kimball continued to live with her parents after her sealing to JS and it would seem that Helen did not have a physical relationship with the prophet, but at the same time Helen seemed to be surprised that she could no longer attend “singles dances” or do other things that would be entirely appropriate for an eligible young lady but not for a married one. Very hard to classify and categorize what type of marriage was what and the bounds and conditions for each type.
I agree with Ray’s comment about Brigham being sexist and racist by our standards, but that we shouldn’t denigrate him too much. I also agree with Cwald that if polygyny is allowed, polyandry should be as well. I dated a widow when I was single. She felt like “used” goods because she could never be sealed to another man, and she said her first husband didn’t treat her well, and she didn’t want to be sealed to him forever. She felt like it didn’t matter who she married the 2nd time, and she married a non-member. I really felt empathy for her situation, and it didn’t seem right to me that she couldn’t be sealed again. (Of course, after she dies, she will be eligible to be sealed to the 2nd husband, so posthumous polyandry is ok….) I find Joseph Smith’s polyandry troubling as well, and I question why he felt the need to be sealed to other men’s wives. However, I think it is important to understand that the concept of sealing was very different in his day. While there was baptism for the dead, other vicarious ordinances (sealing, endowment, etc) were not done. The Geneaoligical Society of Utah didn’t exist until about 1890, and saints were encouraged to be sealed not to their parents, but to church leaders. It was during Wilford Woodruff’s administration that children being sealed to parents (going back to Adam) first began to be practiced. Members were encouraged to be sealed to prominent members of the church, rather than to past family members. So in that sense, it made sense to want to be sealed to Joseph and Brigham.
I know that Richard Bushman talked about this in RSR, and I didn’t really appreciate his arguments at the time, but as I understand the Law of Adoption better now, it is starting to make sense to me how they thought. I actually like our current understanding of the sealing ordinance better now.
Things may change. There is a great book called the Development of LDS Temple Worship by Devery Anderson that shows church minutes, memos, letters, etc showing how certain temple practices have evolved. The most interesting one to me was to learn that Howard W Hunter suggested that women should be able to be sealed to more than one man posthumously. Pres. McKay approved it in 1969, and women can now be sealed to multiple husbands. See my post on Multiple Sealings for Women:
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/07/24/multiple-sealings-for-women/ With such practices evolving, I hope that someday a living woman (such as a widow) can be sealed to multiple men if they are worthy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.