Polygamy "Doctrine" in Institute – Fall 2015

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

My concern isn’t what Joseph did, it’s the implications of our explanation of what he did for today’s LDS women. If possible, I’d like to focus on that and not so much on being stunned by Nauvoo polygamy. The question for me is, what now

What-now, indeed. That’s basically the question for which StayLDS tries to seek all answers. Each person’s what-now will be unique to them, to the time, and to the topic. My what-now has changed drastically as I’ve continued to figure out what makes the best sense under the most pressing circumstance.

On the polygamy… today’s polygamy… the polygamy of our current teachings (D&C 132) and practice (multiple sealings)… there are problems aplenty, but few solutions.

I believe that someday the Church WILL refute polygamy as having anything to do with God. I think it will have to. I don’t think we are that far from being able to do it and I think most members of the Church would breathe a great sigh of relief. Unfortunately, the recent essays have built what looks like an impenetrable wall to that eventual outcome by restating that it was the will of God. Overall, the essays may have helped marginalize polygamy as an outlier of our beliefs, but if God was behind it, then it is a divine outlier. The result of the essays, then, is to reinforce old beliefs. So, it’ll take a while, perhaps, to get there.

The Church’s quietness about polygamy doesn’t make it go away. We don’t ‘practice’ it anymore, but we still believe it… and that is the salient point.

That leaves each of us with the question of “what now?”

Do I fight? No… not because I want to defend polygamy, but because I only have the desire to work actively on a few fronts. Fighting more than that will cause me to overwhelm the few good things I gain from my involvement from the Church. My focus right now is on same-sex marriage acceptance and gender roles, where I think I am making progress with the people I talk to.

Do I flee? No… at least not yet… I have sometimes considered whether I can stay in the Church over this specific topic. I don’t want my staying to be counted as a vote FOR the current construct of polygamy-as-doctrine-if-not-practice. But any time I think of leaving, I talk myself out of it because I think voices like ours help push the discussion of these types of topics forward.

So, in the absence of fighting of fleeing, how do I live with the Church? Here, I think it’s a little easier for me than for many here, because I am free from any ‘belief’ entanglement. I’m in no way trying to convert anyone else to Atheism; I think everyone here who has read my posts can attest to the idea that I’m not a proponent of Atheism, it’s just that it does describe my faith. But, as I said, I think my belief that there is no God frees me from trying to figure out any sort of balance. To me, polygamy has nothing to do with either truth or spirituality. So, for me, I can compartmentalize. Polygamy is something I hate, but when I sit in the pews waiting to take the sacrament with my right hand, I never think about polygamy. I use my spiritual energy to think about the message of Jesus, the meaning behind it, and the theology of Paul… and all these concepts in the perspective of how they help me be a better person. For example, yesterday, I read from Hebrews (though it’s not written by Paul, I still find it interesting). And the section I read was:

Quote:

It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

This is just me. I’m able, because of my unique beliefs. I fully recognize that other people come at it with an entirely different starting position, so it may not be so easy.

But, I do find it helpful for me to force myself to divide and conquer, mentally. Polygamy is a big problem still today. My power to change it is essentially nil. Ergo, I seek ways to operate that don’t depend on it changing.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

For me, the biggest issue with polygamy boils down to consent.

Amen.

Ironically, that is one of the biggest reasons I can’t condemn it entirely, in all cases – since I know personally a woman who chose it completely on her own, no pressure, no coercion, full consent. I also know there are far more in that situation than the one woman I know.

I know this is a stretched analogy, but for me it is similar to people who condemn same-sex marriage entirely because they can’t fathom any reason to accept it, even in theory. I can’t imagine myself in either of those arrangements (polygamy or same-sex marriage), but I value the right of others to choose their own arrangements – even if those arrangements seem repulsive to me.

Full, informed consent is about the only restriction on which I will not concede – and that is why I hate the way polygamy was implemented in our own history.

I have been moving a bit more towards libertarianism, so if the sister wifes really want to have the setup they have, who am I to say. It seems generally healthy for the kids on the surface. If they wanted to guys and one girl, same deal.

But the coercion is what gets me also. It goes past being “not good”. It feels downright evil. Makes me sick to think of my daughter being stuck in this situation

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I have been moving a bit more towards libertarianism, so if the sister wifes really want to have the setup they have, who am I to say.

Here, we have to be very careful. The problem with looking the other way is that the vast majority of polygamous marriages are either religious or societal in nature. If religious, then we have to recognize that as soon as the word ‘God’ is used, coercion is implied. If societal, then we must recognize that in the parts of the world where polygamy is an accepted part of society, it is nearly always the case that women operate from a severely disadvantaged social status, and therefore coercion is built-in. I bring this up because I think it is dangerous to look the other way when it comes to gender inequality. If you ask the “sister wives”, sure… they are all for it. Just like if you ask most women in the Middle East, they are fine with their heavily restricted ‘rights’. They have been indoctrinated into a social order of things. But for the infant girls who haven’t yet received training, they still face a life as less-than, even if someday in the future they are quizzed and agree with it.

[Anonymous]

^+1000000!!!!!! Exactly why there is coercion in almost all polygamy set ups! Thanks for stating it so simply and well!

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

There are women in the church who defend polygamy, and it seems to me that they fall into two camps: 1) those disappointed by their first husbands and hoping for an upgrade even as a multiple wife, and 2) those who feel secure in their placement as a first wife.

My wife defends polygamy. I think she falls into both camps – she is secure in her placement as a first wife and she is disappointed by me 🙂.

We actually had a little fight about it a couple weeks ago. I told her she doesn’t have to worry about me ever getting involved in polygamy and that I don’t believe section 132 was inspired. She defended it so I said, “Okay, let’s go read it to our daughters verse-by-verse and see how they feel about it.” I then challenged her to carefully read it herself. She read it as I sat there and she said she doesn’t have any problems with it. That’s just bizarre to me. She is an intelligent woman and I don’t see how she is not concerned by it. I dropped the subject at that point.

I also told my daughter that she doesn’t have to believe in polygamy no matter what any church leader or seminary teacher says about it.

hawkgrrrl, I really like what you wrote about the “law of Sarah”. That “law” is rubbish.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t weighed in for a while, but I am glad we are still having this conversation. As we work out our thoughts here and collect safely from others we will have better skills when we face the conversations face to face. It’s a super touchy one, but I feel great hope that if our little circle can exchange and learn, we can take that into our other relationships.

I appreciate all the variant thoughts.

[Anonymous]

I agree, again, with rejection of coercion – but I still have to leave open a door for two specific situations I have mentioned:

1) Fully consenting adults – The woman I know did not agree to her polygamous marriage from any religious pressure. She wasn’t raised in an environment that taught it as a religious principle. She also was not disadvantaged in any way, with no other choice. She was a professional woman who simply wanted to be married to someone who already was married – and the other wife didn’t object. Every person consented, and, to my knowledge, they all are happy. That might not be, but I have to make assumptions I’m not willing to make in order to reach that conclusion.

2) As I have said previously, I have to grant people who have been married to and loved deeply more than one spouse the right to believe in marriage beyond the grave and have a personal faith that they won’t have to choose between people they love deeply and passionately and equally.

As I have said previously, it helps a lot that I don’t see our relationships in the next life as being sexual.

The God in whom I believe is not going to coerce anyone into a relationship after death they don’t want – and I am fine leaving decisions like this in the hands of the people involved. Thus, I would LOVE another strong repudiation of mortal polygamy, like the quote from Preaident Hinckley, and I would LOVE a clear teaching that polygamy won’t be required in the next life, but I personally can’t go as far as demanding a repudiation of any relationships other than monogamous marriage in the next life (particularly since that implies, currently, heterosexual relationships only).

Finally, unofficial polygamy exists in many open relationships – and not all of those involve coercion. Many do, I am sure, but many don’t. I hate the thought of open marriages, since marriage does mean something special to me, but I don’t condemn people in open marriages. There sometimes are considerations that make it more palatable than others, and, ultimately, as long as there is no coercion, I default to teaching a principle and letting people govern themselves.

[Anonymous]

Reading this thread has led to an epiphany.

On Own Now wrote:

Do I fight?

Do I flee?

No.

But I will not fear.

[Anonymous]

That last sentence is a GREAT conclusion, Ann.

The details of how each person gets there can vary, but I love that statement.

[Anonymous]

So what if the Church disavows polygamy? Does it mean it was never a correct principle? How can it ever do that?

Either it was sanctioned by God or it wasn’t. And if it is no longer a correct principle, was there a revelation to direct this?

I never thought that polygamy would ever challenge my faith until I learned about the details behind what was said to the women, their ages, and all of that. I don’t see any way out of this.

[Anonymous]

The “way out” is the same way we view so much of the Bible – that even people who are called prophets are human and make mistakes.

Joseph is the most chastised person in the D&C. We tend to ignore that simple fact. Understanding it can help.

[Anonymous]

I understand the idea that prophets are fallible. But we aren’t talking about a few mistakes or missteps….it’s a matter of claiming revelations from God with very clear language written down and published; 30+ wives, some at the age of fourteen and telling them they were damned if they didn’t agree; and from a man that saw God–or had a vision of some kind. Not just a man in line of succession to carry a mantle, but the man that restored the gospel to earth. I don’t see it as a mistake of one indiscretion or error, but either a clear direction from God or not.

[Anonymous]

Alex wrote:

I understand the idea that prophets are fallible. But we aren’t talking about a few mistakes or missteps….it’s a matter of claiming revelations from God with very clear language written down and published; 30+ wives, some at the age of fourteen and telling them they were damned if they didn’t agree; and from a man that saw God–or had a vision of some kind. Not just a man in line of succession to carry a mantle, but the man that restored the gospel to earth. I don’t see it as a mistake of one indiscretion or error, but either a clear direction from God or not.

In trying not to just be pointing the finger at other people’s mistakes, when I try and give them a pass – I am left with a real feeling of “If tons of top church leaders have not been able to be correctly guided by the spirit for decades, what are the chances that I will be able to find the truth via revelation?”

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

In trying not to just be pointing the finger at other people’s mistakes, when I try and give them a pass – I am left with a real feeling of “If tons of top church leaders have not been able to be correctly guided by the spirit for decades, what are the chances that I will be able to find the truth via revelation?”

If tons of top church leaders have been able to claim in full confidence that they have been correctly guided by the spirit despite evidence to the contrary I believe I can walk a little more confidently down my own path, perhaps even afford myself that same level of respect that I so freely gave others.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

DA – What do you think, though, about Roy’s thought back at the beginning of this thread? My concern isn’t what Joseph did, it’s the implications of our explanation of what he did for today’s LDS women. If possible, I’d like to focus on that and not so much on being stunned by Nauvoo polygamy. The question for me is, what now?

Roy wrote:

Ann wrote:

Countenancing past polygamy, refusing to clearly state that we are DONE in mortality with multiple spouses of ANY mix of gender and numbers, and SITTING BY while the implications of that wash over the women and girls of the church is, in my opinion, unconscionable.

I agree. Since we are so clearly not going back to the good ol’ days of polygamy – why not just say that it has been taken off the table for the rest of mortality. Why not double down that God’s eternal standard is monogamy. What does that mean for people that were married to multiple people in this lifetime (either successively or concurrently)? We do not know but we have faith that an infinitely loving God will sort it out in a just and merciful fashion…How many LDS people would a statement like that offend?

I’m not sure polygamy really has that many practical implications for many LDS women in real life especially compared to other traditional LDS teachings and expectations such as the 1950s style gender roles where many LDS women basically feel like they are supposed to be stay-at-home moms with as many children as possible rather than pursue education and career goals. In fact, it looks to me like many Church members whether male or female simply do not think about or worry about polygamy all that much. Even if they don’t really like the idea of it I think many of them basically view it as already in the past and no longer anything to worry too much about nowadays similar to the racial priesthood ban simply by virtue of the fact that the Church has already abandoned the practice (in this life) and many of them have never read the essays or paid that much attention to D&C 132 and the history of it to begin with.

Maybe it would be different if the Church was still asking people to practice polygamy or explicitly teaching that they need to accept that it was commanded by God but as it is I’m not sure most active members really care that much about it. I understand that there are some women that feel really strongly that it was wrong, unfair, impossible for them to accept, etc. but I don’t think that is any more likely to convince Church leaders to change their minds about this than other issues like treating gays and lesbians fairly, some women asking for the priesthood, etc. One reason I don’t expect Church leaders to do much more to officially reject this doctrine any more than they already have anytime soon is because it’s not simply a matter of popularity and common moral judgments, it’s also a matter of credibility for revelation in general.

For example, if Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Church leaders didn’t know what they were talking about in this case then why should we have that much confidence in them in other cases like the WoW, tithing, and temple marriage? Personally I don’t think they deserve that much trust to begin with in all these and other cases based on their track record so far but until Church leaders are willing to really question previous leaders, scriptures, and especially Joseph Smith it’s no surprise that they will typically try to uphold tradition as much as possible. Even if some of them don’t believe this practice was inspired they could still resist changing D&C 132 and making an official statement against polygamy simply because they don’t want to draw attention to it and would rather take their chances that most members wont notice or worry about it that much mostly because they want to protect Church members’ fragile testimonies supposedly for their own good or whatever other reasons (I.E. “the ends justify the means”).

[Author]

Posts