- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
That’s all.
I’m NOT excusing what occurred, and I don’t like it; I’m just saying it’s important not to mis-state it. Also, again fwiw, I don’t believe the member of the Stake Presidency is representative of the general population in the Church or the top leadership. I think the very top leadership wants nothing to do with polygamy – but that is only a personal opinion.
But the church says that we must excuse it.
I can’t for the life of me understand why we can’t contemplate polygamy as a mistake. I only listened once, so maybe I misunderstood him, but in a recent interview at A Thoughtful Faith, Terryl Givens tells John Dehlin that maybe God didn’t command polygamy. But, well, if that’s what Joseph thought up to do, God “backed His prophet.”
What??? God endorses the use of threats in marriage-making? Glad tidings! The heavens are opened, priesthood authority restored – so that a man can espouse a virgin and then espouse some more, and destruction and doom to anyone who resists?
If the very top leadership wants nothing to do with polygamy, then, in my opinion, they have to stop telling the world that the prophet and leading men of the restoration were commanded by God Himself to practice it. I think it does all kinds of damage, and a serious disservice to the men in the church who love and cherish their wives and daughters and treat them like full human beings.
AngryMormon wrote:Ray, I think there is DNA evidence that he did have sex with many of these women. In addition, just because DNA evidence doesn’t exist with some of the women does not mean that he did not have sex with them. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Do you really believe Ray that he just had sex with some of them but not the others after marrying these women in secret? Joseph Smith just wanted to take care of them, is that right? You can take care of women and others without marrying them. It’s called being a Christian!
Also Ray, I don’t believe it is just the former member of my Stake Presidency who is interested in the prospect of Polygamy coming back. Why is the rape of 14 year old girls accepted in that State of Utah in the first place? FYI-Marrying and having sex with 14 year old girls is rape because 14 year old girls can’t legally consent to sex in the first place with an adult and that is exactly what groups like the FLDS and others do. In my state and 48 others, I strongly believe that there would be mass protests and outrage if this occurred so publicly.
It took Warren Jeffs trying to pull the same kind of illegal and disgusting behavior in Texas that finally stopped him. The fact of the matter is that there is a culture of elected representatives in Utah that allow this kind of crap to continue. It gives Utah and the LDS church a bad image.
Another reason I think men who are members of the LDS church would like polygamy to come back besides sexual reasons is that I never hear anyone at church speak in outrage with what is occurring to these young girls in Utah. If the Church is so interested in morals and the sanctity of marriage, why not speak out about what is occurring in their own back yard with maybe 1/10th of the veracity they do with gay marriage? Isn’t raping a 14 year old girl way worse than two gay guys hooking up? Gay marriage doesn’t impact the Church and its image like the FLDS and other groups do. Why remain so quite on this subject?
I’m fairly certain there’s no DNA evidence of sex with women. There are 0 children identified through DNA. There’s only one other type of DNA evidence and, without getting too specific, I’m not sure that type would have lasted for 180 years.
I’m also not sure what you mean about the church not speaking against raping 14 years olds. That is illegal. Joseph is not accused of this and anyone doing this today would be rightly prosecuted and, hopefully, locked away for a very long time.
The church doesn’t spend much time speaking out against other crimes because there’s no need. They’re illegal.
AM, as I said, I don’t condone or agree with most of what occurred with the various forms of multiple marriage / sealing with Joseph or Brigham. However, we obviously disagree about various things, and this site is not a place to argue about it. All I will say is that there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any sex involved in the sealings to Joseph’s youngest wives – even though I believe there might have been in the case of Fannie Alger. To call Joseph a rapist is something that simply lacks any evidence, so it is something that doesn’t belong here in this forum.
Again, all I’m saying is that this issue is different when discussing Joseph and the general Nauvoo period and Brigham and the Utah period – and it’s really important to make that distinction.
Given the emotion of this topic and the last few comments, and how far they are from the original topic, let’s let it drop, okay?
AngryMormon wrote:Ray, have you ever read any of Emma Smith’s diaries or other writings regarding her husband from this time period?
Emma’s diaries? I would love to get my hands on such material. Emma Smith has been somewhat of a pet interest of mine for some time now but I had understood that she didn’t leave much in her own hand behind. Are these diaries and writings part of the JSP project?
Back to the OP….
I personally don’t see the church ever going back to polygamy. Even today the LDS church will not baptize someone that is in a polygamous marriage in a locale where this is legal. In contrast The Community of Christ will baptize these individuals on the condition of them not marrying any additional persons. Even Isaiah 4:1 that people use to say that polygamy will be restored in the millennium is not universally accepted as such. There is an orthodox interpretation that this is a prophecy of apostate polygamy and not authorized “plural marriage” because the marriages are for name sharing and procreation only rather than the providing and becoming “one” that proper marriage should entail. (Please don’t hold JS up to me – I know that his sealings are all over the map)
I look at the idea of Polygamy being reinstituted as similar to the law of consecration or the command to gather to Missouri and build the city and temple of our God with “Holiness to The Lord” over every doorway. Those ships sailed long ago when our church was young and experimental – I don’t believe they are ever coming back.
Polygamy may someday become legal in the US – but I don’t believe the church will be a part of it.
I also have a joke. One Mormon man says to another Mormon man – “I had always thought that I was naturally predisposed to be polygamous. Unfortunately, the modern church makes no distinction between that gift of the spirit and adultery.
😥 “I don’t want to debate this here, but just to set the record strait for future readers…
AngryMormon wrote:I think there is DNA evidence that he did have sex with many of these women.
Actually, no there isn’t… at least not yet. There have been zero children identified through DNA from JS, but not from Emma. There have been several that were thought in the late 1800s to be children of JS, but they have been shown not to be.AngryMormon wrote:The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Agreed, but the absence of evidence is also not evidence.The laws against polygamy were used for so long as an excuse to abandon that disastrous practice, it creates a conundrum for the organization if the laws are lifted. It’s a problem because they NEVER own up to changes, just take the lazy route and wait for it to fade from memory. But we’ve spent so much time away from polygamy that there is NO going back. We can point to hardcore fanatics who would do anything they are told, but the fact is most members would NOT comply with this. It opens up a whole can of worms. It would force people to look back into history to understand why … and that is the last thing they want — people exploring history. It would destroy the church as we know it. And they KNOW it (the leadership).
If the laws against plural marriage were lifted, the prophet would inquire of the Lord and conveniently receive revelation instructing the church to continue as it is without polygamy. That would be the most convenient solution. I’d bet money on that.
Old-Timer wrote:
2) Joseph was sealed to over 30 women, but he was “married” in the traditional sense (including living actively with someone) to only one woman – Emma.As far as the living with: Fanny Alger, and maybe the Lawrence sisters or others that both lived in his home and were married to him could qualify for a brief period. True they wouldn’t appear to be equal in many ways to Emma.
In response to Brian’s comments if it became legal I don’t think the church would have to do anything other than restate the current position that monogamy is the standard and polygamy is an exception when commanded. I don’t think it will ever be commanded.
Brian Johnston wrote:We can point to hardcore fanatics who would do anything they are told, but the fact is most members would NOT comply with this. It opens up a whole can of worms. It would force people to look back into history to understand why … and that is the last thing they want — people exploring history. It would destroy the church as we know it. And they KNOW it (the leadership).
There seems to be spruced-up groundwork being laid for the you’d-do-it-if-you-were-righteous-enough scenario. A willingness to live polygamously is still the gold standard. Is this going to be the approach that the church takes? If this were from a musty book, I wouldn’t give it much thought, but considering the source, I’m upset.
” However, in 1890 God rescinded the commandment sanctioning the lawful exception to the general law of marriage. Polygamous marriages would no longer be recognized by the Lord, and indeed would be grounds for excommunication from the Church. This rescinding did not “unrestore” the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, or temple marriage. Temple marriage is a mainstay of our religion and will never cease to be our ideal. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is still among us, but the commandment to live the lawful exception to the general law of marriage in the new and everlasting covenant is no longer among us.
Thus the “restoration of all things” does not demand that polygamy be actively practiced among the Saints; it merely demands that the possibility of God commanding polygamy (which possibility demands the restoration of temple marriage and sealing keys) exists. And so it does to this day. As long as there are temples and sealing keys among our people, God can, whenever he chooses to do so, command his people to practice polygamy.” – V.H. Cassler, “Polygamy” in squaretwo.org, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 2010
Cassler is a regular member, just like you and me. She believes something most members don’t – and the majority of members didn’t participate even back when leaders said it was important to exaltation. So, seriously, why should I care what she thinks or writes – especially when I don’t believe the actual leadership has any intention whatsoever of re-instituting polygamy? We are firmly in the area of speculation in which every individual here, including me, has no real way to know if she or he is correct. We are dealing strictly with concerns, hopes and fears – and that is even more volatile than most topics we discuss.
Just thought I would share some humor cartoons on polygamy. The other one would not download but had an American man talking to a Sheik Arab about having more wives. He then says to the American…”Yes, but you get four mothers in law too.” I finally got the right thread Ray!! Very complicated issue and really upsetting for many of us. Really appreciate all the comments on this thread. I am in the middle of reading “In Sacred Loneliness” and learning alot. But, even the interviews on Talk shows with men with more wives shows it is not as great as they try to make it appear. However, I also don’t like all the acceptance of cheating, mistresses, and affairs that tv shows glamorize. Love the cartoon, Bridget. 😆 :clap: That is funny. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Yeah, so I’m absolutely, 100% in favor of gay marriage. I think that it is also a completely different issue from polygamy. Gay marriage involves allowing people who are attracted to others of the same sex to marry people to whom they are actually sexually attracted. There is an element of genetic wiring, along with this idea of the right to choose one’s partner.
Polygamy shares the “choice of partner” idea, but not the “genetic wiring,” unless you’re arguing that some people are genetically incapable of being monogamous, but that is kind of proving my point (getting there in a bit.) In addition, it has an extremely dangerous public policy issue. Basically, whenever any legislation gets passed that changes the game, you have a lot of movement along the border. Thus, while it’s easy to say, “oh come on, legalizing polygamy certainly isn’t NORMALIZING it,” which is generally true, it is not true for people along the border. (Not talking about Mexico here.) 99% of people today, if polygamy were suddenly legalized, would probably not jump on that bandwagon and start signing up for multiple spouses. But what about, say, the incredibly rich man with a hot trophy wife? If polygamy were suddenly made legal, wouldn’t that be a demographic where you could see a sudden rise in plural marriages? A beautiful woman draped across one’s arm has long been a sign of status in our society…how much better would it be if you could have TWO? THREE?!?! And once a few members of the ultra-elite have established a new (admittedly eccentric) status symbol, how long do you think polygamy will remain limited to certain religious groups? I am certain that any kind of polygamist law would make room for polyandry as well, but as a social construct I see that as less likely to be prevalent. A “trophy husband” is a far less common concept, and one that is still viewed negatively by most people. I don’t see that really having room to catch on the way polygamy would.
Some argue that socially, the people most disadvantaged by a polygamist society are extremely undesirable males and extremely desirable females, as a society that allows multiple women to partner to the same man leaves the men at the bottom of the totem pole without any available women. Similarly, a woman who otherwise would have been able to secure an extremely desirable partner for herself without having to split his attention would now be obligated to do so, so these extremes both have a tangible disadvantage. But for everyone else, hey–why not? (Although in this case, probably the extremely desirable women would just practice polyandry or, hey, monogamy, since this situation is not a “polygamist society” so much as a society that allows for polygamy.)
My issue with this idea is that it doesn’t take into consideration the changes in quality in the relationship, as well as the relationship dynamics. Any world in which it is even remotely acceptable for a partner to say, “You’ve upset me, so now I’m going to go away and spend time with my other spouse,” seriously stunts honest emotional communication. It also puts the pluralizing spouse in a position of unfair power, where his/her needs are put first, and the pluralized spouse is in constant competition for his/her affection. There is a constant lean on the pluralized spouse to agree, submit, and placate the pluralizing spouse. Since I believe the most common practitioners of polygamy would be single men paired with multiple women, I feel like this is a serious step backward in women’s rights. In addition, I believe it legitimizes the idea that some people just “can’t be with one person,” which is eye-rollingly annoying.
There are a lot of rights that I want for people to have, but polygamy just isn’t one of those. People who are determined, for religious reasons, to practice polygamy have been able to do so; officially legalizing it for the country at large creates more problems than it solves.
IMHO.
Now, this one I thought was hilarious. Apollyon wrote:Yeah, so I’m absolutely, 100% in favor of gay marriage. I think that it is also a completely different issue from polygamy.
Gay marriage involves allowing people who are attracted to others of the same sex to marry people to whom they are actually sexually attracted. There is an element of genetic wiring, along with this idea of the right to choose one’s partner.
Polygamy shares the “choice of partner” idea, but not the “genetic wiring,” unless you’re arguing that some people are genetically incapable of being monogamous, but that is kind of proving my point (getting there in a bit.) In addition, it has an extremely dangerous public policy issue. Basically, whenever any legislation gets passed that changes the game, you have a lot of movement along the border. Thus, while it’s easy to say, “oh come on, legalizing polygamy certainly isn’t NORMALIZING it,” which is generally true, it is not true for people along the border. (Not talking about Mexico here.) 99% of people today, if polygamy were suddenly legalized, would probably not jump on that bandwagon and start signing up for multiple spouses. But what about, say, the incredibly rich man with a hot trophy wife? If polygamy were suddenly made legal, wouldn’t that be a demographic where you could see a sudden rise in plural marriages? A beautiful woman draped across one’s arm has long been a sign of status in our society…how much better would it be if you could have TWO? THREE?!?! And once a few members of the ultra-elite have established a new (admittedly eccentric) status symbol, how long do you think polygamy will remain limited to certain religious groups? I am certain that any kind of polygamist law would make room for polyandry as well, but as a social construct I see that as less likely to be prevalent. A “trophy husband” is a far less common concept, and one that is still viewed negatively by most people. I don’t see that really having room to catch on the way polygamy would.
Some argue that socially, the people most disadvantaged by a polygamist society are extremely undesirable males and extremely desirable females, as a society that allows multiple women to partner to the same man leaves the men at the bottom of the totem pole without any available women. Similarly, a woman who otherwise would have been able to secure an extremely desirable partner for herself without having to split his attention would now be obligated to do so, so these extremes both have a tangible disadvantage. But for everyone else, hey–why not? (Although in this case, probably the extremely desirable women would just practice polyandry or, hey, monogamy, since this situation is not a “polygamist society” so much as a society that allows for polygamy.)
My issue with this idea is that it doesn’t take into consideration the changes in quality in the relationship, as well as the relationship dynamics. Any world in which it is even remotely acceptable for a partner to say, “You’ve upset me, so now I’m going to go away and spend time with my other spouse,” seriously stunts honest emotional communication. It also puts the pluralizing spouse in a position of unfair power, where his/her needs are put first, and the pluralized spouse is in constant competition for his/her affection. There is a constant lean on the pluralized spouse to agree, submit, and placate the pluralizing spouse. Since I believe the most common practitioners of polygamy would be single men paired with multiple women, I feel like this is a serious step backward in women’s rights. In addition, I believe it legitimizes the idea that some people just “can’t be with one person,” which is eye-rollingly annoying.
There are a lot of rights that I want for people to have, but polygamy just isn’t one of those. People who are determined, for religious reasons, to practice polygamy have been able to do so; officially legalizing it for the country at large creates more problems than it solves.
IMHO.
Great points and I sooo agree! Bridget
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.