Polygamy "Doctrine" in Institute – Fall 2015

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Of course, no one has to do anything. But we teach that God commanded it and we haven’t taken it off the table. It’s a wretched thing to do to our girls.

Members who publicly call the divinity of Section 132 into question are given “attention” from leaders.

Do we teach that God commanded it? When was the last time a Q15 said that? It’s in the essays – OK. How many members have read those essays? It’s frequently mentioned here that when people ask in their wards almost no one has and most aren’t even aware they exist.

I’ve only been back from a long hiatus for about a year and a half – but I have yet to hear a lesson or a talk about polygamy, and the few I have heard about eternal marriage or families (I can only remember 2) have made no mention of polygamy. I have also yet to hear Section 132 discussed or referenced and I have been in on no discussions where someone is given attention because they oppose Section 132. Fact is almost everything I hear on the subject is right here and on other boards. I understand this is a safe place to express our views (mostly hiding behind anonymity) and I appreciate that we can discuss things here we can’t discuss on Sunday in church meetings and even in most cases with our bishops or stake presidents. That’s why we’re here, isn’t it?

I am a social moderate (at least). I believe in equal rights for all. I personally don’t care if women get the priesthood – it’s not what you think it is you’re welcome to it for all I care. I think the church treats gays extremely poorly and I don’t blame them for leaving.

I was born a heterosexual male and I can’t change that, and neither does your vitriol. I can’t change that you were born female. And I can’t change your mind and I have no desire to. I can’t change what people in your ward teach or what is taught in any class anywhere – I have no more input than any other rank and file member and being male does not change that. I can’t control your anger at me just because I was born male or hold the priesthood or because I am the prodigal son returned. But I can control me, and while I will show forth as much Christlike love as I can muster at any given time to anyone, I don’t have to listen to hate because of who I am.

I am done with this conversation ladies, to me this thread no longer exists. I have said my piece and my point of view is clearly quite different from yours. I have nothing else to say.

[Anonymous]

DJ – I am NOT angry at you. Please accept this as an apology. I can delete the whole dang thread if we’re all better off that way.

My experience and my daughters’ experience is that we were taught it. The manuals do say that God commanded it. My younger one has been told so twice in the last six months. The Quorum of 12 doesn’t need to teach it. The CES and Seminary teachers are doing it. That’s all I’m saying.

I absolutely didn’t mean it as a personal attack on you, or blind rage at all men. I’ve said many times that the way we handle polygamy does a real disservice to the good men of the church, too.

[Anonymous]

Dj, I know that you are not coming from a place of malice on this topic. However when you say “that polygamy is not taught that way here and you are sorry this (polygamy) offends you” you simply do not understand what section 132 does to a girl or woman. It IS taught to this day that it is from God and could be reinstated at any moment and is most likely part of the celestial kingdom therefore it is still a threat! So it does kill a part of lds girls or women when they have to silence their inner voice and stifle questions about the horrors of what 132 implies for all lds women. However nicely it is “taught” it still is there and the essays only continue to threaten lds women. So women of the church have to make a choice, accept,ignore, or move away from the church. Most simply choose to ignore it. Imagine if African American men were still taught through the scriptures and essays that their priesthood could be removed at any point in the future because “at times God commanded that they not have it”. How do you think those men would feel? Secure, safe, equal? That their opinion mattered as much as white males? How would those men feel and reconcile that knowledge each day in the church? Welcome to a small part of what lds women are taught and go through.

As far as your statement that you have as little power as women in the church that is simply not true. At any point however remote you could still be called into a leadership position. Are you not in the stake or high council in some way at the moment after 10 years of inactivity? A faithful, steady, always attending female will NEVER have that ability. Sorry but even having some voice and influence at the local level is better than no voice or power on ANY level.

[Anonymous]

Re. the power and influence of men and women in the church, I can definitely see why men are perplexed at women’s take on this. My husband probably felt his most powerLESS … as a bishop. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Ann,

Please do not delete the thread. Everyone has stated multiple times that we know DJ is not malicious in his comments. Like wise the women’s responses to him have not been malicious or full of “hatred”. It is simply women expressing what the issue of polygamy can do to lds women. If women can not express the truth here what is the point of trying to move things in a better direction at church? How will we help our daughters if every lds male who can not or does not want to hear the pain polygamy caused and still causes to this day removes themselves from the conversation? Being male they can remove themselves with little thought, that is their privilge. Lds women do not have that ability since we were not asked for input about polygamy in the first place. There will be little hope for our daughters if lds men can not understand that they are not being attacked when confronted by women that voice concern over polygamy and its implications for themselves and their daughter.

[Anonymous]

If anyone ends up discussing this more openly with leaders or teachers or your kids’ leaders and teachers, I hope you’ll share it with us here.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t had any leader conversations, as a woman though, I did want to take a present day stand (as everyone here has experienced in LDS life, this may change at some point but) polygamy really doesn’t bother me.

I am not ignoring it or side stepping it. Do I wish for the sake of any conversations that the essay had either really put it to bed or clarified that entering the Celestial Kingdom did not, does not, nor will require polygamy? Yes. Do I think Emma got bamboozled? Yes. And I can’t fathom a God who would do that, especially after all Emma did to support the church and Joseph. But earlier in this thread I gently added my two cents and bottom line I don’t think polygamy will be required. Too many valuable families didn’t practice it, were never offered it, and for all intents and purposes were in just as Godly as standing as anyone else. Hyrum is just one example.

Yes we should change our temple sealing rules to reflect this, it does deserve some overhaul, but I really do look back at God’s history with mankind and see so many single spouse monogamous relationships, and just can’t wrap my head around God giving people like Mary and Joseph second class status because they weren’t practicing polygamy.

It’s messy, ugly, and just as un-clarified as ever but some of us ladies just aren’t as affected by it. AS for leader conversations and reactions, we need to remember that a SS teacher was fired for teaching Race and the Priesthood, even with the essays. So even if the essays have these clarifications, it still hasn’t spread – even when we’ve disavowed something. In a very hurtful way, we are lousy historians, and we do keep causing emotional turmoil. – That is a courage and correlation problem. I know plenty of men who are just as grossed out by polygamy as women.

[Anonymous]

Mom3,

It is wonderful that you are able to dismiss polygamy so easily. I also believe that it was simply a man made justification for high ranking lds men to have the “right” for more sexual partners. Will there be people with multiple spouses in heaven?I think so IF that is what they choose and desire. As far as the church though, it is asking a lot of 15-17 year old teenagers in seminary to understand that the church could be wrong on this topic. Especially when will still teach that it is from God, required of lds women to accept and come to terms with and that it may come back in this life or certainly the next. That is not an issue with teaching or correlation, that is what we believe and teach the next generation. Most teens and young adults are still in the black and white phase of thinking with their brain development. That is why even though I can not care about polygamy as an adult, I do not want my daughter (and all of the YM around her) at the age of 15 to get the very clear message that 1. she/women and their desires are not important in the eyes of God and worst 2. the church and God do not believe she/women have the innate right to her/their own sexual autonomy.

I have seen very educated,decent, grown men in their mid thirties discuss how they hope they will be righteous enough in this life to get “really hot wives in the celestial kingdom.” This was not in jest or with any regard to their current wives desires. Thanks to polygamy there is an undercurrent even if only at a subconscious level that women are sexual rewards for righteous lds men.

As adults we can see the nuances, the grey, the freedom of personal revelation and choice. You and I can look at that group of guys and call them misguided and wrong. Youth have a much harder time with that and most will simply follow what their trusted teachers and adults in their life tell them are the reasons for polygamy. If they have any questions or concerns they will simply stuff them inside since faithful and righteous YW/YM would not question the prophets in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I agree that it is not taught very openly.

However I also assume that at some point every LDS woman will come into contact with it. It was commanded in the past. It might or might not be a requirement for the highest level of the CK. It might come back prior to or during the Millennium. It is the ultimate expression of selfless love that should be aspired to. My DW believes that God the Father is a polygamist. She is a Bishop’s daughter that graduated Seminary, LDSBC, and BYU. Where did she get that notion from? An LDS couple confided to us that they had prepared their hearts and were prepared to live polygamy when it came back again. Where do they get that notion from?

Even without the prospect of ever having to live polygamy ourselves, the way that polygamy was implemented and taught in the past does seem to indicate that women are not as valued as men in the economy of heaven. It is this underlying assumption that is intertwined within many LDS teachings/cultural reference points and that some LDS women find so very suffocating.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

It’s messy, ugly, and just as un-clarified as ever but some of us ladies just aren’t as affected by it.

I do need the reminder that some women don’t care. So I appreciate the reminder and your gentle approach, even if I can’t emulate it. It really does take all sorts.

What’s your take on the girl in the class, meek and lowly, willing to submit to what she considers the inevitable? If that were my daughter, I’d be sad. I would see her as I see myself at that age – whittling away at my sense of self until I fit in the doctrinal box. It was just a couple of years ago that I sprang from it.

And, by the way, I’m also sad for my daughter. As she sits there, her trust and respect for her leaders is being whittled down, too. The ties that bind her to this particular church (not to God) are weakening.

What I’m saying is that both girls are losing.

[Mini-Moderator note: After mom3 responds, I’ll probably lock the thread – maybe reopen it if and when there are conversations to share.]

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Part of me is saying, Hang on a minute. How did the conversation get here?

But part of me understands how it “gets here” real quick.

Yes, Ann…it will always get here real quick. If we waited a week, then started another thread on this topic…it would likewise get real quick to the same spot. It’s just a topic that does…on about every website I see it talked about.

My thought is because:

1) It is not taught clearly what we believe from church leaders, so we are all left to grasp at straws. (Pres Hinckley said one thing, but D&C 132 still stands.) No official statements make it clear what we believe, even if we carefully choose words on what we practice or don’t right now.

2) I know what I believe. But I can understand others taking different positions because our leaders allow us to, and frankly, I don’t think they realize the damaging message to women that became clear to me as I talked to my daughters through high school when they came home from church crying about it. That opened my eyes. Telling them they didn’t have to believe it didn’t help them feel better because people in their church still believe they should believe in it in heaven…which utterly freaked them out.

3) Men and women will process this issue differently, as all individuals can process it differently but there is a gender component to this that upsets me.

4) ..and there is no resolution. I tend to use GBH quote as my guidance. But I realize a quote in an interview on CNN is not scripture like D&C 132 is. I’d like more. We don’t have more. There isn’t resolution. But holy cow…do I ever emphatically tell my girls to never never never feel pressured to believe something that feels wrong in their hearts…and they like hearing their father reinforce that to them…even if it is confusing to them why so many in the church seem to hold on to “it will be re-instituted someday, maybe in heaven.”

Because there is no resolution to it…and it is so emotionally charged…it will draw a frustrated crowd. Personally…I think it is healthy for us to have these threads in order to talk about it openly and not all have to tip toe around the issue. If a guy doesn’t see it a big deal…let him think that…but let him listen to how many women speak up to share their feelings about it. It needs to be expressed, it needs to be heard. It shouldn’t just be swept under the rug or told to deal with it privately. (Let’s just deal with it respectfully).

Dax wrote:

If women can not express the truth here what is the point of trying to move things in a better direction at church? How will we help our daughters if every lds male who can not or does not want to hear the pain polygamy caused and still causes to this day removes themselves from the conversation?

I agree, Dax. I totally agree. It needs to be expressed (constructively). Use caps if you need to! Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

However I also assume that at some point every LDS woman will come into contact with it. It was commanded in the past. It might or might not be a requirement for the highest level of the CK. It might come back prior to or during the Millennium. It is the ultimate expression of selfless love that should be aspired to. My DW believes that God the Father is a polygamist. She is a Bishop’s daughter that graduated Seminary, LDSBC, and BYU. Where did she get that notion from? An LDS couple confided to us that they had prepared their hearts and were prepared to live polygamy when it came back again. Where do they get that notion?

Yes, it’s a process we should try to bottle and sell. (No need to teach; subjects still learn!) We really need clarification.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Because there is no resolution to it…and it is so emotionally charged…it will draw a frustrated crowd. Personally…I think it is healthy for us to have these threads in order to talk about it openly and not all have to tip toe around the issue. If a guy doesn’t see it a big deal…let him think that…but let him listen to how many women speak up to share their feelings about it. It needs to be expressed, it needs to be heard. It shouldn’t just be swept under the rug or told to deal with it privately. (Let’s just deal with it respectfully)

Thanks for this. The specifics are getting a little fuzzy at this point, but I still remember the morning a couple of years ago when I opened up the laptop and read some responses to my comment that 132 takes an unacceptably high emotional toll on LDS women. To have even a few people, and men in particular, read and respond to my thought brought tears to my eyes.

[Anonymous]

Admin Note: The worst thing about discussions of polygamy is that emotions almost always get in the way, and mischaracterizations almost inevitably occur. Not to pick on any person, seriously, but the following is a great example:

DJ felt attacked and removed himself from the conversation, and everyone said, essentially, “No, you aren’t being attacked.” Immediately following those denials, people who remove themselves from conversations were described as having no interest in understanding and reading about women’s pain. It might not have been meant as a direct insult directed toward DJ – but, as worded, in context, it absolutely was a brutal slap in the face to him. It called him insensitive, uncaring and deeply sexist – again, I am certain, unintentionally.

This topic elicits extreme emotions and, too often, extreme reactions. However, in the end, we are about working to find ways to stay LDS to whatever degree is possible for us. That must remain our focus – or we become just one more site to do nothing but vent, complain and condemn.

I don’t want to close this thread, and I absolutely do not want it to be deleted, but if we are at the end of any possibility of having constructive discussion, it will be closed. I am sure it will be discussed again in the future.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Dax wrote:

I have seen very educated,decent, grown men in their mid thirties discuss how they hope they will be righteous enough in this life to get “really hot wives in the celestial kingdom.” This was not in jest or with any regard to their current wives desires. Thanks to polygamy there is an undercurrent even if only at a subconscious level that women are sexual rewards for righteous lds men.

I thought about moving this to a different thread .. But I have never done that before and I chickened out. Anyway …

My DD while at BYU, talked about the large number of guys who were told on their missions, “The harder you work, the hotter your wife is going to be.”

DD would have guys randomly ask her out and assume that because they PICKED her, the answer was going to be yes. She found the same with marriage proposals. She found too many guys who assumed that if they were interested in her, obviously she would say yes to them.

One guy who she had worked with, and gone out with ONCE, tried to come visit over the summer. She said no. His father then called her/us and wanted to know why she was playing such games with his son, their son wanted to pursue her as a marriage partner, and WHAT WAS HER PROBLEM. I sat and listened to my daughter tell that father that she had gone out with his son ONCE and there was no relationship.

I have wondered if that cultural attitude about women and marriage has come from polygamy.

[Author]

Posts