- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am certainly not here to defend polygamy. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ll do my best to try to speak for others. In answering the questions, Quote:What is the point of this distinction? Are we just trying to prove that JS didn’t have sex with every underage girl and old maid to whom he was sealed?
Yes, this is exactly what I think that Brian is doing. Not only that, but one thing about Brian is that he states that no critics of Joseph have attempted to apply the theological justification of plural wives/celestial marriage/polygamy. That is the one ground-breaking thing that Brian attempts to do is to fully detail the theology in Volume 3. Hales is arguing that the theology is a lot more than just sex, and he is using the point that sex was much more infrequent than critics have alleged.
I hope that quote I gave above is in context. As I think about it, there is a rumor that Eliza Snow was pushed down the stairs by Emma and miscarried. I don’t know Brian’s position on that, but I believe Hales thinks the rumor is false. There is also another rumor that Emma was upset when Joseph married the Partridge sisters. According to the rumor, Emma was furious to learn that these sealings were more than spiritual sealings. When Emma found Joseph intimate with one of the sisters, Emma threw a fit. Once again, I don’t know how Hales handles this story. But as I read the quote again, Hales mentions a 3rd angel, so perhaps these other incidents are after this 3rd visit, or perhaps Hales discounts them as simply false rumors.
Quote:Are we trying to infer that if JS was a lech then he would have had sex with everyone?
I don’t know who “we” are, but certainly there are many critics that allege that Joseph was lecherous with an over-active libido. Certainly Hales, Bushman, and others believe that there is more to the story than simply sex. But critics try to make it all about sex.
What is the point of drawing distinctions between Joseph- and Brigham-style polygamy when the church maintains that it’s ALL righteous and justified? The approved discussion ends there. I’ve been listening to the BoM on mp3 lately and I couldn’t help but notice how often a king or group was rebuked by the prophets or God for having multiple wives. Quote:Jacob 2: 24
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Jacob 1:15
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Jacob 2:27
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
Mosiah 11:2
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.
Jacob 3:5
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t care if there was a sexual component with a specific, small number of women; I don’t like that there was such a component with any of them. I do like, however, that it appears to have evolved and become something other than traditional polygamy / marriage (that, focused on communal / dynastic sealing, it didn’t have a sexual component) toward the end of his lifetime – which is one of the reasons why I don’t like that it developed into classic polygamy under Brigham Young.
I agree with this Ray. Polygamy turned into something that it wasn’t supposed to be. It also started out as something that it wasn’t supposed to be but it developed into what I think was what the Lord had in mind. Did Joseph and Brigham make mistakes regarding polygamy? Most certainly. That being said, if it ever was brought back and I was asked to take a second wife, my temple recommend would be on the Bishop’s desk before he finished the question.mormonheretic wrote:I am certainly not here to defend polygamy. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ll do my best to try to speak for others. In answering the questions,
What is the point of this distinction? Are we just trying to prove that JS didn’t have sex with every underage girl and old maid to whom he was sealed?
Yes, this is exactly what I think that Brian is doing. Not only that, but one thing about Brian is that he states that no critics of Joseph have attempted to apply the theological justification of plural wives/celestial marriage/polygamy. That is the one ground-breaking thing that Brian attempts to do is to fully detail the theology in Volume 3.
Thank you, MH and Ray, for providing fair answers to my questions. As far as the theology, that has always been somewhat vague. Isn’t it that the greater the size of the family that is attached to a man the greater the glory of that man in the eternal worlds. Then on the flipside there was a kind of reflected glory for being attached to such a rising star individual. I believe this is reflected in the adoption of adults as children and the provision during the BY period that a woman could ask to leave her husband to be married to someone that would take her further glory wise. Additional input would be appreciated.
Quote:What is the point of drawing distinctions between Joseph- and Brigham-style polygamy when the church maintains that it’s ALL righteous and justified?
Because “the Church” can be wrong about some things, and it’s important to me to come to an understanding of things that make sense to me. Complicated things aren’t black-and-white, so I refuse to stop thinking just because a black-and-white view is the general standard.
Having said that, I think there are FAR, FAR, FAR more fully active members who do not think “it’s all righteous and justified” than most struggling members realize. Even when it was being preached as necessary to accept, the majority of members didn’t do so. That alone is highly instructive.
Roy, I’m not very far into the theology book to comment on Brian’s take on it. However, what you’ve said regarding polygamy is my recollection and understanding of it as well. I know that Richard Bushman talks about Joseph wanting to create a dynastic sealing. Even though I’ve read Bushman, I still can’t get my head around the concept very well, but I think the idea is to seal everyone to everyone else, and we’ll help save each other together. Following the Manifesto in 1890, Wilford Woodruff changed the focus of temple work from everyone trying to be sealed to general authorities to everyone being sealed to their parents. It was a pretty dramatic change, and BYU professor Richard Bennett has put together some really interesting papers and presentations on this change from the Law of Adoption to our current geneaological practices. Bennett believes that was a large motivation behind Woodruff’s concern about losing the temples to the U.S. government, and certainly the focus of temple rites changed pretty significantly under Woodruff. (Bennett is the new president of the Mormon History Association this coming year.)
I know that Ray is more comfortable with JS era polygamy, while I am more comfortable with BY era polygamy. My problems with JS era polygamy concern the fact that polygamy was secretly practiced, but under BY it was openly practiced. Under JS, there were more polyandrous sealings, but under BY, there really weren’t very many (with the Richardsons being a rare exception.) Under Brigham Young, it did seem that women did have more agency to divorce if they felt they made a bad decision (though because of the secrecy, few divorced under JS. But it could be that JS allowed Alger to leave when the heat was on.) Under BY, there were more widows that participated in polygamy, and it was a way to spread monetary wealth. (It was a form of the welfare system.) There were women that participated strictly for financial reasons, and no sex was involved.
But my biggest problems with polygamy are the sheer number of wives. There is a Jewish regulation that limited men to 4 wives. JS and BY went way beyond the limit of 4, and that does bother me. Additionally, I just don’t see biblical polygamy under the same light as shown in D&C 132. For example, D&C 132 says that David never sinned except in the case of Uriah and Bathsheba. As I’ve studied David, I can see a multitude of sins, and I think a strong case can be made that he orchestrated the assassination of Saul. (If you look closely, the circumstances are similar to Uriah.) Additionally, his mistreatment of his first wife Mikal is appalling to me. David had MANY sins. His family life with all the jealousies and infighting were less than exemplar.
Solomon also married many non-Isrealite women who worshipped many false gods, so I have a hard time saying that he did not sin in polygamy either. 700 wives and 300 concubines? Seriously? And Abraham’s mistreatment of Hagar and Ishmael? It makes my stomach turn to see him send his wife and child out into the desert to die (though an angel appeared to Hagar and Ishmael and promised them they would become a great nation.) This does not appear to have the same theology as shown in D&C 132. So I have a hard time reconciling biblical polygamy with D&C 132 polygamy. They do not at all appear the same. I can’t see how God justified Abraham or David or Solomon or anybody else.
mormonheretic wrote:Following the Manifesto in 1890, Wilford Woodruff changed the focus of temple work from everyone trying to be sealed to general authorities to everyone being sealed to their parents. It was a pretty dramatic change, and BYU professor Richard Bennett has put together some really interesting papers and presentations on this change from the Law of Adoption to our current genealogical practices. Bennett believes that was a large motivation behind Woodruff’s concern about losing the temples to the U.S. government, and certainly the focus of temple rites changed pretty significantly under Woodruff. (Bennett is the new president of the Mormon History Association this coming year.)
Thanks MH. Do you have any links to the referenced “really interesting papers and presentations on this change from the Law of Adoption to our current genealogical practices.” That sounds fascinating.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:What is the point of drawing distinctions between Joseph- and Brigham-style polygamy when the church maintains that it’s ALL righteous and justified?
Because “the Church” can be wrong about some things, and it’s important to me to come to an understanding of things that make sense to me. Complicated things aren’t black-and-white, so I refuse to stop thinking just because a black-and-white view is the general standard.
Sorry, Ray. That came out pretty terse; as you write here I definitely see what motivates you and others to think about this. I am so very frustrated the official church bottom line -God commanded; He can command again. I sometimes feel like there’s a silent – So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
That’s NOT the way I read people here. Sorry.
mormonheretic wrote:I am certainly not here to defend polygamy. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ll do my best to try to speak for others. In answering the questions,
Quote:What is the point of this distinction? Are we just trying to prove that JS didn’t have sex with every underage girl and old maid to whom he was sealed?
Yes, this is exactly what I think that Brian is doing. Not only that, but one thing about Brian is that he states that no critics of Joseph have attempted to apply the theological justification of plural wives/celestial marriage/polygamy. That is the one ground-breaking thing that Brian attempts to do is to fully detail the theology in Volume 3. Hales is arguing that the theology is a lot more than just sex, and he is using the point that sex was much more infrequent than critics have alleged.
I hope that quote I gave above is in context. As I think about it, there is a rumor that Eliza Snow was pushed down the stairs by Emma and miscarried. I don’t know Brian’s position on that, but I believe Hales thinks the rumor is false. There is also another rumor that Emma was upset when Joseph married the Partridge sisters. According to the rumor, Emma was furious to learn that these sealings were more than spiritual sealings. When Emma found Joseph intimate with one of the sisters, Emma threw a fit. Once again, I don’t know how Hales handles this story. But as I read the quote again, Hales mentions a 3rd angel, so perhaps these other incidents are after this 3rd visit, or perhaps Hales discounts them as simply false rumors.
Quote:Are we trying to infer that if JS was a lech then he would have had sex with everyone?
I don’t know who “we” are, but certainly there are many critics that allege that Joseph was lecherous with an over-active libido. Certainly Hales, Bushman, and others believe that there is more to the story than simply sex.
But critics try to make it all about sex. If “critics” includes women like me, I can say I don’t make it all about sex. Polygamy says: Girls, women – All of your sex. . . . . . . and love, loyalty, childbearing, emotional intimacy, humor, intelligence, hard work, talents and learning. That all belongs to one man. And in return you’ll get from him whatever fraction of the same is available. A half, a quarter, a fiftieth. It’s of no real consequence. You don’t merit any more than you get.
Brown wrote:I’ve been listening to the BoM on mp3 lately and I couldn’t help but notice how often a king or group was rebuked by the prophets or God for having multiple wives.
Quote:Jacob 2: 24
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Jacob 1:15
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Jacob 2:27
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
Mosiah 11:2
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.
Jacob 3:5
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
The answer often given when I’ve asked. The same is in Jacob 2:30
Quote:
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Problem is, there’s no record of a command until 1843. People say he had the command in 1831, but that is all based on the recollections of people in Utah defending their practice of plural marriage. Even the 1843 revelation wasn’t made public until 1850s.
Joseph updated the D&C in 1843. He didn’t add in 132 and didn’t remove the old 101 which prohibits it.
He also never qualifies for the 2:30 ‘permit’ as no kids came from the marriages (at least none that we can identify).
Ok I know that people discussing the church’s polygamy are coming from a intellectual/scholarly thirst for knowledge and simply trying to explore and explain why it came about. That being said, it does not matter to me if JS era polygamy was better than BY era. Or that JS only slept with a “few” of his wives, that a woman could get divorced during BY’s time. Or that they were “only trying to seal everyone to everyone in a glorious eternal link and polygamy was to increase MAN’S glory in the next life.” Or “well most members wouldn’t practice it.” Whoopee!! So lets see, polygamy was for men, by men, benefited men, and women well you should be grateful that the men are willing to take you to a higher glory based on your obedience. Yes those reasons are all I need to be willing to sacrifice my integrity, sexual autonomy, desires, free will and soul. Now I am at peace with this “eternal principle.”
All of these scholarly debates, probes and “insights” of the benefits or the whys of polygamy from an intellectual point almost always leave out or barely acknowledge the emotional and spiritual price that lds women have paid and continue to pay to this day.
If you are a lds woman in no uncertain terms you are aware that polygamy could be reinstated whether here or the next life. And simply saying “well most members don’t want it” does not lessen the threat because as a woman in this church we have ZERO religious authority or power to stop it if the men decide to reinstate it. In fact we would be told to “honor our priesthood leaders by being obedient.” Does it help that it most likely won’t happen? Sure a little bit, but the fact that as a woman in this church I would be threatened with damnation if I disobeyed, that DC 132 is still in the scriptures, that the new ODD simply states that “well monogamy is Gods way usually” does little to comfort or uplift women from second class citizens. When the facts are glossed over, when the emotional and spiritual turmoil that polygamy causes many women is justified, then women are told however subtlety that they are not as important in God’s eyes as the men.
A very bad analogy to how the church’s stance and history of polygamy could affect men in a way similar to lds women could be the race issues we have in America. Imagine for a moment you were African American. Imagine that the Jim Crow, separatist laws of the South were first established by “divine revelation”. Now imagine the laws are STILL on the books but not being enforced due to another “revelation” but the CHURCHES on Sunday still attempt to explain and justify the laws past use as being “necessary for the times by God”. Add to that the fact that you have no religious or judicial authority. Now tell me that as a African American you wouldn’t have in the back of your mind the thought and worry that at some point those laws would be reinstated? Even if everyone told you, “oh no don’t worry they won’t be,” or that “God will make peace in your heart if they are.” Would you not in some inner corner of your soul feel that you are worth less to God compared to a white man?
Yes it is a stretch of an analogy and there are better ones I’m sure. The point is though you can’t simply talk about polygamy from an intellectual standpoint and leave out the emotional gut wrenching reality of many lds women. The way the church handles and justifies polygamy to this day still causes many lds women harm even if the women will not discuss or admit it out of fear of not being supportive of the prophets.
Hi – I’ve been invited to this website and have enjoyed reading the comments. I’m also pretty thick-skinned so if someone wants to disagree with me, that is okay. Regarding why JS practiced plural marriage, I see two issues. First, why was it
permitted? JS gave three reasons. First to restore OT polygamy (Acts 3:21; D&C 132:40, 45). I argue this is the ONLY reason he ever needed to give because Old Testament patriarchs never gave a reason for their practice of plural marriage. There is no marriage theology in the Old Testament. Joseph only needed to say, “They did it and I’m restoring it.” Fawn Brodie et alwho say JS gave us D&C 132 to satisfy his conscience and justify polygamy are wrong. He never needed to create an eternal marriage idealogy if all he wanted was to expand his sexual opportunities by implementing polygamy. Second, to multiply and replenish the earth and create devout families for noble premortal spirits (D&C 132:63). Several authors say this is the most important – depicting that plural marriage was all about sex. Respectfully I believe they are in error and would invite them to document the claim. While it wasn’t all about sex (see the third reason below), sex was one of the reasons. I’ve documented sexual relations in 12 of the plural marriages with ambiguous evidence for 3 more. However, none of those 15 women were 14, having sex with their legal husbands, or not sealed to Joseph.
Third and by far the most important reason plural marriage is needed in Joseph Smith theology is described in D&C 132:16-17. All men and women need a spouse to be exalted, otherwise they “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity,” which is damnation. Polygamy allows all worthy women to be sealed to an eternal husband. D&C 132:61-63 explains how a woman cannot have two husbands but a man can have more than one wife and that the process is for “their [the plural wives’] exaltation in the eternal worlds” (v. 63). Section 132 provides only for there to be more worthy women at the final judgement. It isn’t something I have “figured out” or reckoned, it is just the only option D&C 132 describes.
The second issue is why was plural marriage
commandedbetween the early 1840s and 1890? No other group of God’s followers have ever be so commanded according to the Standard Works. JS reported an angel commanded him. I’ve collected 22 accounts from 9 men and women who knew Joseph personally referring to those visits. (Volume one of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology, chapter 
. However, no prophet or Church leader (then or since) has explained why it was then commandedand JS’s theology only describes why it needs to be permitted. Church leaders and members have suggested some reasons: (1) Women outnumbered men in the Church in Nauvoo and in Utah [not true]; (2) To bring needed trials and challenges [true but not mentioned by Joseph Smith]; (3) Publicity value [B.H. Roberts’ idea]; (4)To solve the world’s moral problems. [difficult argument to successfully promote]; and (5) Polygamy produces healthier parents and children [even more difficult to defend]. I’ve tried to be concise but hope it doesn’t sound overconfident. I’m happy to discuss any point. I don’t expect everyone to see things my way, but I hope that those that see things differently will bring some historical documentation to discuss. Evidence is important because many authors have taken ambiguous evidence and spun it in extreme ways and their audiences are unaware. So much of what has been written about JS and plural marriage is misleading and inaccurate.
Take Care,
Brian Hales
Well said Dax and Ann.I feel that polygamy does color our current sense of equality in marriage. It is hard to say that God created us for different but equal roles (like the yin-yang, two halves of a whole) and then say in the next breath that the man half is fulfilled by one man (and only one man is permitted) and the more women the better in the woman half. Regardless of the quantity of women there is no risk of imbalance – The man is more than enough to counterweight all the women. His glory becomes greater and the glory of each woman becomes greater as their glory is tied to his. I don’t think that the church actively teaches any of this but it also isn’t disavowing it. To most modern members polygamy doesn’t make any sense and the only recourse is to say that God commanded it and that his ways are higher than our ways. Not long ago that was what was said about the priesthood ban – but that tone has recently changed.
Once again, I think Dax has done the best job summarizing my position and attitude about Mormon polygamy. …which basically is, there is no defense or justification.
NONE.
But LDS men still try.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.