Read them here, here, and here. I’ll leave the squabbling over whether they fairly represented the historical situation to those who get paid the big bucks to consider those questions and instead look at a tangential issue: how they depict the way that prophets receive revelation.
But before my tangent to polygamy, two tangents to my tangent:
1. How happy am I that the essays assume that decreasing economic inequality and increasing multi-ethnic families are good things? Very happy!
2. One essay concludes with this: “For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement. Despite these hardships, plural marriage benefited the Church in innumerable ways.” This surprises and worries me. I’m nervous that the idea that “yeah, it was illegal and everyone thought it was wrong, but I think it will ultimately benefit the church” might gain a foothold.
Back to my tangent. A few quotations:
“Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage.”
“The revelation on marriage stated general principles; it did not explain how to implement plural marriage in all its particulars.”
“The full implications of the document were not apparent at first. The Lord’s way is to speak “line upon line; here a little, there a little.” Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was gradual and incremental, a process filled with difficulties and uncertainties.”
“Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties. Church leaders and members experienced these challenges as they heeded the command to practice plural marriage and again later as they worked to discontinue it after Church President Wilford Woodruff issued an inspired statement known as the Manifesto in 1890, which led to the end of plural marriage in the Church.”
“The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come. Latter-day Saints are encouraged to trust in our wise Heavenly Father, who loves His children and does all things for their growth and salvation.”
“The members of the Quorum of the Twelve varied in their reactions to the Manifesto.”
“But the full implications of the Manifesto were not apparent at first; its scope had to be worked out, and authorities differed on how best to proceed. “
“The Manifesto was silent on what existing plural families should do.”
“Speaking at general conference soon after the Manifesto was given, President George Q. Cannon reflected on the revelatory process that brought the Manifesto about: “The Presidency of the Church have to walk just as you walk,” he said. “They have to take steps just as you take steps. They have to depend upon the revelations of God as they come to them. They cannot see the end from the beginning, as the Lord does.””
What I see here is–intentional or not–the articulation of a theology of prophetic revelation that runs precisely opposite to the way that many Mormons (mis)read Amos to say that God will do nothing without first revealing his secrets to the prophets (Amos 3:7) and that whether by God’s voice or the voice of church leaders, it is precisely identical (D & C 1:38). Rather, this suggests that God reveals things line by line (a scripture frequently quoted in these essays), does not reveal all details at once, and leaves some matters to be worked out without divine mandate.
I think the odd confluence of 1950s American corporate culture, historical amnesia, and rapid world-wide growth led Mormonism to advance the idea that a CEO-like prophet got regular memos from God, bullet-pointed with precise operating instructions designed to maximize return for the next quarter. Diligent work by historians, now disseminated instantly and internationally, shows that that vision isn’t quite precise. It is understandable that some will mourn that vision–I know I’d feel much safer led by that bespoke-suited CEO, divine memo in hand, than by some guy with a leather belt eating locusts in the wilderness. And yet, we should thank those historians (some of whom sacrificed their careers, if not their very membership in the Church, in order to publish things very similar to what is hosted on the Church’s own website today) for helping us overcome the cultural conditioning that misled us regarding what prophets are and what they do. The glass through which we see today is a little less dark because of their work, not just on historical matters related to polygamy but also regarding what we should–and should not–expect from prophets.
“We should thank those historians (some of whom sacrificed their careers, if not their very membership in the Church, in order to publish things very similar to what is hosted on the Church’s own website today) for helping us overcome the cultural conditioning that misled us regarding what prophets are and what they do.” Amen and amen.
Thanks, Julie, for hitting on a very important point. This, and the new headings a couple years ago to the D&C sections, really move us in the right direction in understanding the messay nature of revelation and prophesy. It is that element–a better understanding of the historical craft–that I think is most needed in our culture.
I thought the “Origins” essay was quite good, though I have a few quibbles. (My biggest issue is the essay’s conclusion that posits polygamy can, in part, be viewed as a success because many Church leaders descended from polygamous families. That statement worried me, for many reasons.) I was especially glad to see they didn’t take a hard line on the nature of sexual relationships in polyandrous sealings. Overall, it covered everything it needed to, and did it as well as could be expected given the circumstances.
I thought the post-manifesto polygamy essay was phenomenal.
Speaking of some of those historians: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/topic-pages-polygamy/
Solid.
A wonderful angle on this! Especially– “I’d feel much safer led by that bespoke-suited CEO, divine memo in hand, than by some guy with a leather belt eating locusts in the wilderness.” Brava.
Hmmmm. Food for thought, as always.
“Multi-ethnic families” gave me a moment’s pause, but then I realized that it referred to Danes marrying Welshman, Englishmen marrying Waldensians, and Germans marrying Swedes.
The difficulty arises in navigating between the Scylla of “prophets see through a glass darkly” and “do many things of [their] free will and choice,” it not being meet that they be “command[ed] in all things,” and the Charybdis of “his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth . . . .” I suspect that the safe course is set forth in the next five words “in all patience and faith.” It’s fitting that patience comes before faith in that clause.
I very much agree with your conclusions here. I too worry that the “it was beneficial” or “the benefits outweighed the drawbacks” is probably the stance the church will take. They are in an unenviable position, collectively because polygamy happened and top leaders participated and claimed it was necessary, and individually because in most cases we are talking about their actual recent direct ancestors.
What Angela C said.
One more thing, it’s very strange the church continues to use the term plural marriage, when what was practiced is called polygany, polygamy, or polyandry by the rest the planet. Why do we insist on our own dictionary here?
Really brilliant, Julie. Would that all my family (and friends, and ward members, etc.) could have this perspective. I wouldn’t be seen as such an apostate. No, just seeing complexity.
I love this line in your essay – “I think the odd confluence of 1950s American corporate culture, historical amnesia, and rapid world-wide growth led Mormonism to advance the idea that a CEO-like prophet got regular memos from God, bullet-pointed with precise operating instructions designed to maximize return for the next quarter. Diligent work by historians, now disseminated instantly and internationally, shows that that vision isn’t quite precise.”
Nice commentary, Julie, although I think LDS bishops will continue to use the every-word-inspired standard for local pastoral enforcement. (And the LDS approach to church courts along with Correlation is as much an artifact of baptized corporate management as is the idea of proophetic inerrancy.) As much as I am tempted to note particular statements that don’t measure up, it seems wrong to criticize what is certainly a big step forward in historical candor and accuracy.
Your point #2 “For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement. Despite these hardships, plural marriage benefited the Church in innumerable ways.” This surprises and worries me. I’m nervous that the idea that “yeah, it was illegal and everyone thought it was wrong, but I think it will ultimately benefit the church” might gain a foothold.”
Should be informed by this statement from one of the lds.org articles:
“Confronted with these contradictory allegiances, Church leaders encouraged members to obey God rather than man.”
When Daniel was confronted with a law, he chose to obey God, rather than man, and he was blessed and better for it.
What do you see as the reasons for being worried that people will say the church benefited from plural marriage? Do you expect the opposite to be said? Plural marriage was a mistake that harmed the church more than it benefited?
“What do you see as the reasons for being worried that people will say the church benefited from plural marriage?”
DQ, I don’t have a problem with the church talking about benefits of polygamy. (Although if they are going to, they might have also mentioned the independence it afforded women, setting a pattern. I realize that was a double-edged sword which cut deep, but still.) What I have a problem with is someone concluding from the material I quoted that it is OK to violate the law if they think the church will benefit.
When I was 14 or 15 years old, a fireside speaker asked everyone in the room who had ancestry in he Church back to the mid-1800s too stand. I stood along with a great many others in the room. Then he asked those whose direct ancestry included polygamous marriages to sit down. I was the only person left standing. (In my family, the generations are spaced out 35-50 years, with virtually no one of marrying age in Utah from 1850-1890. That, rather than any known objection, no doubt accounts for the lack of plural marriage in my ancestry.)
The speaker said he had done that exercise dozens of times before, and it was always that way. Church members who had practiced plural marriage tended to have children and grandchildren in the Church. People who avoided plural marriage tended not to have descendants in the Church. I spoiled his presentation a little, but not much.
It wasn’t just Church leaders; it was rank and file, too. And if that were the only good, the practice benefited the Church.
And the reason we call it plural marriage today is because that’s what we have always called it. We didn’t practice it for the reasons the world assumes, and there’s no reason to adopt the world’s label for it.
This was just excellent, Julie.
Fair enough. I don’t think hardly anyone except that random hypothetical crazy fringe guy that’s destined for excommunication anyway would draw the conclusion that they can behave illegally and justify it because it’s ok for the church.
Is it that I look at my neighbors in pew and see them differently? I suppose since a lot of “traditionalist” (ugh…) members share common socio-political viewpoints I’m more trusting of their intuition, while many of the “liberal” (again ugh…) members by very nature look at their neighbors in the pew and see them as being “wrong” for whatever reason. Naturally, the one group that looks at the majority and sees them as wrong would be suspect of how they’d supposedly (in their eyes) misinterpret something else.
Not trying to psychoanalyze too much here… if I put the shoe on the other foot and said the common opinion of the bloggernacle was representative of the rest of the church, I’d also be annoyed and concerned as I’m also sometimes annoyed and concerned by a lot of the undercurrents of bloggernacle thought. Sorry for the babbling…
Thanks for this, Julie. What a great perspective. Like Mark B. (#7) I was struck by the “multi-ethnic families” benefit of polygamy, something that was so much more complex than what the essay can do justice. As Mark B. pointed out, the ethnicity of which they speak is a northern and western European ethnicity–plus Native Americans who it was hoped would become “white and delightsome” through mixed marriages. The all-Mormon territorial legislature prohibited black-white sexual intercourse in 1852 and then the Protestant and Mormon legislature prohibited black-white and white-“Mongolian” marriages in 1888. But as you note, the fact that “ethnic intermarriages” are counted as a positive outcome of polygamy in the essay is a good sign.
Ardis, I’m confused by your example. The fact that, with the passage of enough time, most all of the members in your fireside had at least *one* ancestor who practiced polygamy does not lead to the conclusion that “[p]eople who avoided plural marriage tended not to have descendants in the Church.” By that logic, I could gather a class of college freshman at an American University, ask them to trace their family histories to 1700, then ask those who had *no* European ancestry to stand, and falsely conclude that “non-Europeans tended not to have descendants in the United States.”
You see the problem? It is highly probable that most all of the people in your fireside descended from both members who practiced polygamy and from members who did not.
“Diligent work by historians, now disseminated instantly and internationally, shows that that vision isn’t quite precise.”
Yes. This has been popping up in all kinds of quasi-official/employed-by-the-Church writings. Here’s a collection of money quotes.
Spencer Fluhman, from BYU’s Religious Studies Center, “1835: Authority, Power, and the “Government of the Church of Christ” Link
In regards to # 16 and 20 as I read his biography President Monson has no polygamous ancestors. It is also my understanding that President Mckay had no polygamous ancestors.
John Willis (#22), in his McKay bio, Greg Prince argues that McKay was selected as an apostle precisely because he had no polygamous family. But for that, McKay never would have been considered, as his family was not one of the main leadership families. The new church essays appear to touch on this point:
“The time was right for a change in this understanding. A majority of Mormon marriages had always been monogamous, and a shift toward monogamy as the only approved form had long been underway. In 1889, a lifelong monogamist was called to the Quorum of the Twelve; after 1897, every new Apostle called into the Twelve, with one exception, was a monogamist at the time of his appointment.44 “
President Monson is the descendant of Swedish immigrants who were married in SLC in 1898, post manifesto. It would make sense he didn’t have plural marriage in his history I think.
In doing a quick google on McKay, I came across a nice little story on page 7 about McKay’s mother strong will opposition to plural marriage, inspite of the fact that her husband was the bishop of a ward with many plural marriage familes:
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V31N03_25.pdf
Interesting that both were immigrants from Europe. I know some immigrants from Europe arrived and left after disillusionment, but I think the immigration process itself would also have a refiners fire type strengthening of ones faith (if endured that is). So I’d see it as complimentary to plural marriage in some respects for at least a generation or two.
Clearly, not every plural marriage or immigrant descendant remained faithful, but I think the sacrifices each made would result in a natural strengthening of testimony and knowledge of God that would have in affect on later posterity.
Ardis’s example puzzles me deeply. Dave K (#20) beat me to it though.
I have polygamous ancestors. But a majority of my 1800s-era pioneer ancestors were not polygamists. I would have sat down at that fireside, but the speaker would have drawn the wrong conclusion.
“The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come. . . ”
I think that many of those who practiced polygamy did so precisely because they were crystal clear about the nature of those relationships in the next life.We are the ones that don’t understand how it works.
Julie, I don’t have much to add. Just wanted to say that you are hitting it out of the park on a regular basis. Thank you!
J.A.T.: It’s not so tidy. If you have a deceased ancestor who was not LDS in her lifetime, and if she married more than one husband over the course of her life, you would be allowed to conduct all three spousal sealings for her in the temple. She would be sealed to three husbands.
Those who practiced polygamy in the 1800s were “crystal clear” only about relationships between one husband and several wives. But in the quote you gave, “these relationships” seems to refer (inter alia) to the one wife, many husband scenario I just spelled out. I’m not sure the church offers any crystal clarity in this case.
How, specifically, did plural marriages benefit the Church? I can’t think of ‘innumerable’ ways. Supposedly these marriages resulted in lots of babies… but… does 1 husband and 47 wives produce more offspring than 47 husbands and 47 wives? The limiting factor is the gestational period, after all.
These essays make me so angry. I know, I should be numb to it by now. But I guess the Church can and does still hurt me on almost a daily basis.
Adano,
I agree, the waters are murky when we talk about spousal sealings, especially post-mortem.
However, I think the quote (from context in the essay) is referring to plural marriage by consenting persons from the specified time period. I think that the people who during their lifetimes, entered willingly into polygamy by and large had testimonies of the principle which included unique and clear constructs of their family relationships in the eternities. The original polygamists entered into sealings knowing that:
1) it was forever
2) at some point- hopefully earlier than later ; ) it would include resurrected bodies of flesh and bone
3) men and women (plural?) were not complete without each other
4) the same sociality that exists here exists in heaven
5) Stuff no one understands about King Follet, Kolob, the vision of Alvin, etc.
Only years later would Joseph F. Smith teach that even eternal marriages might be re-considered and sorted out differently in the next life, especially if women were mistreated by husbands in this life. They would have alternatives and choices in the next. I don’t know, but Brigham might also have taught that in the next life relationships would be sorted out. I don’t know of any such teachings from Brother Joseph in the early days when Heber C and others were entering into the practice. For them, it was a clear and eternal bond and part of the vision expressed in some of the extremely interesting lectures and prophesies that we have essentially set aside. To us, it is wishy-washy, but to those who gained a testimony of it . . . they had much clearer beliefs and hopes for the eternities.
-my two cents.
“I think that many of those who practiced polygamy did so precisely because they were crystal clear about the nature of those relationships in the next life.We are the ones that don’t understand how it works.”
I tend to agree J.A.T. I would assume that light would be given to those who faithfully engaged in and sacrificed in plural marriage and I have no reason to expect similar light, not having made anywhere close to a comparable sacrifice. Similar to this line of thought on the Lectures on Faith:
“It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those … who have offered their all in sacrifice … unless they, in like manner, offer unto him the same sacrifice.”
Which is also why I’m not so worked up about the issue and my relative lack of knowledge. I’m not being asked to live it.
The notion that plural marriage benefited the church in innumerable ways is dubious, at best. And those who have bought into the fairy tale that the majority of women who participated in such unions—many times only after being browbeaten by church leaders—were happy, should do their homework. Start by reading “In Sacred Loneliness” and “The Polygamous Wives Writing Club.”
And we shouldn’t be so quick to accept the proposition that polygamy was actually commanded by God. There is no instance in the scriptures where God ordered his children to practice plural marriage. At best, He grudgingly tolerated it.
Having said this, there are some scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon, who believe that, but for polygamy, the church would never have gotten the attention it ultimately received and would have continued in relative obscurity like so many of the sects that were spawned after the Second Great Awakening. B.H. Roberts, I believe, once expressed this view. If, indeed, this was God’s motive, it has a certain Machiavellian quality that I find disconcerting.
I am willing to concede that these are questions that will not be clearly answered during this lifetime. If the church were to express similar reservations in these essays, it would enhance its credibility considerably.
How many more convert baptisms would we have if there had been no polygamy? I believe David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith had zero baptisms on their missions in the British Isles. While missionaries were baptizing people by the tens of thousands in the 1830s and 40s, once word got out about polygamy it all dried up.
Has any plural marriage brought joy? Abraham had to send away Hagar and Ishmael, and the children of Isaac and Ishmael are killing each other to this day.
Polygamy ruined David and Solomon, broke up the kingdom.
Polygamy broke Emma.
The fruits of polygamy seem almost unilaterally bitter.
Has any plural marriage brought joy? What a question. People adjust to their life circumstances. Even slaves and prisoners can feel joy. The women involved in plural marriage — and their husbands — had a hard row to hoe, as the saying goes, but many women had companionship and children and community and even careers. Life could be awful for them, particularly when federal laws forced family members onto the underground, but that was only a part of the several-decades-long experience. Welsh convert Eliza G— was widowed fairly young, but she and her husband’s second wife lived in the Avenues in Salt Lake City for many years in comfortable, shared responsibility and friendship.
When plural wives did not get along, as happened when Miles P. Romney married a second wife, life could be particularly difficult and stressful, but that’s where the easy accessibility to divorce was a benefit, and that situation was fixed, and life improved for them.
In short, lemuel, lack of joy is a feature of clinical depression, not of less-than ideal life circumstances. People make do, sometimes even thrive in difficulty, and many involved in plural marriage, men and women, would undoubtedly react with joy to the heritage they left of faith and devotion and family.
But what a luxury we have of puzzling over the experiment of plural marriage, or condemning it unilaterally if we desire, without having to decide whether to live it ourselves. (What a luxury? What a mercy!)
Well said Amy.
“Has any plural marriage brought joy? What a question. People adjust to their life circumstances. Even slaves and prisoners can feel joy.”
Professor Alan Taylor, in his excellent book, “The Internal Enemy: Slavery and Wr in Virginia, 1772-1832,” recounts how one plantation owner in 1775 enlisted his slaves to carry pickets demonizing Great Britain for threatening the liberty of the colonists. Later, in the years leading up to the Civil War, these same planation owners would parade their property before public assemblies so that the people could hear first hand how contended their slaves were.
If only Abraham Lincoln had listened to those sincere testimonials. Perhaps he wouldn’t have been so quick to attack this peculiar institution and turn upside down the halcyon lives of these blissful serfs.
I wish more of my female ancestors would have put in writing their own thoughts on participating in polygamy. The only autobiographical note I have from one is considerably unfavorable towards the practice, though clinical depression was likely a factor. Among my own ancestors, I don’t get the sense that any accepted polygamy because of spectacular revelations or testimonies of the practice itself. They participated because they believed it was a necessary sacrifice to build up the kingdom of God.
These essays clearly show that the church is not what it claims or implies. Its “prophets” are periodically confused and have gotten it wrong on many occasions e.g. polygamy, racial issues and now gender issues. They are seemingly 30 to 40 years behind the curve but claim the opposite. I think its time for a great reformation starting with truly independent outside auditors reviewing the books and telling us where the money has gone and where its going.
These essays show nothing of the sort, robert.
Amy,
Many people are leaving the church over the issues covered in these essays and the church’s response is mostly one of claiming to not know why things happened the way they did. It’s sad and unfortunate there can’t be a new revelation explaining the issues better than “we don’t know.” Joseph Smith seemed to get a new revelation in short order when he had questions. During the height of polygamy the church leaders seemed so sure it was never going to end but once the federal government seized all the church’s property and the Supreme Court upheld this action, an immediate “revelation” or manifesto suddenly appeared. However, they now don’t really know or cannot really be sure about why things happened the way they did …. and the same goes for most if not all the other essays.
Did pushing a handcart, walking to Zion, or dying along the way bring any joy? What about a life of homelessness, persecution, revilement, suffering, and crucifixion?
I think the pioneers had joy and the Savior had joy. It’s easy for us modern readers to see otherwise when we often don’t have our hands calloused from the trials which accompany the hard work of discipleship.
But it doesn’t make our perspective any clearer. Joy in the scriptures is typically associated with the fruits of ones labor, or posterity (which is pretty much the same thing). It’s much more than happy good times resulting from the contentedness of things going well.
But to make my point more clear, I wouldn’t dare tell any of the early Utah church members they didn’t experience joy in providing for and raising their posterity.
Robert, you sprinkle lots of tangential bombs in your comments.
“30-40 years behind the curve but claim the opposite” – when has anyone ever claimed this?
“telling us where the money has gone” – you can accuse church leaders of many things, but I don’t think you can honestly accuse them of being disingenuous or living lives of extravagance. If I was looking for one, I would put myself in a position to be a lifetime volunteer, traveling and going to meetings until my body can’t take it anymore.
“an immediate ‘revelation’ or manifesto suddenly appeared” – I don’t know if you’re disaffected member or not, but the timetable for revelation and inspiration, personal or church-wide, varies widely.
You will never have all the answers. That was God’s intention, and he knew it would cause lots of trials of faith. That was the point. President Monson is busy running God’s kingdom today, he’s not audacious or silly enough to ask for a 500 page revelation on polygamy copied from the angels’ Book of Life.
I think polygamy was a great thing because I am here because of it!
Food for thought:
A certain western state’s flag has has a honey bee hive (a skep) prominently displayed in a field of navy blue. Honey bee sex is unique in the natural world. A virgin queen will take off in flight. As she flies, she will mate with up to 50 male bees (drones). This flying sex is rough sex. Each male’s endophallus is ripped from his body after ejaculation. He dies. The queen stores up all of the sperm from her flying orgy and then decides later whether to lay fertilized eggs (female worker bees) or unfertilized eggs (male drones).
… oh, and one more thing. Honey (#44), I think fornication is a great thing because I am here because of it. Have a great Thursday.
Cameron:
Are you satisfied with the series of “we don’t know” in the essays? We don’t know how the BofM was translated. We don’t know how the Book of Abraham came about. We don’t know about the origins of the racial ban or why. We don’t know much about why there was polygamy or why it stopped.
Is there anything the church leadership knows about the controversial topics?
Oh Josh (#44) fornication and polygamy both work fine, they both have some major downsides that being born in a monogamous marriage don’t. But being born in a monogamous marriage can have some downsides also. Just ask my children whose parents are divorced. We humans can mess anything up. Are you sorry you were born?
Honey (#47), I should have put a winky smiley face after my comment. ;-) While my comment is completely true, it was also written with a great deal of laughter.
What about this resolution to the whole polygamy/monogamy/polandry conundrum? Instead of worrying about this or that marital relationship, let’s all pay homage to the great provider of much of the human race–the hay loft. ;-)
Honey – “I think polygamy was a great thing because I am here because of it!”
Sorry to be a downer but under this logic rape would be a great thing to. If you go back far enough in anyone’s genealogy you will find an ancestor who’s birth was the result of rape. All of our family histories are full of positives and negatives.
Personally love haylofts, not rape! Just saying many of us love our lives and are thankful to be here. I personally appreciate the fortitude it must of taken for 6 sister wives to be married to my second great grandfather. I would never denigrate their sacrifices by assuming I know how they felt about their lives. I just appreciate their sacrifices in crossing the plains, starving in the valley and living in polygamy.
” I just appreciate their sacrifices in crossing the plains, starving in the valley and living in polygamy.”
That seems like a wonderful way to deal with history, particularly family history. Celebrate the virtues we find while making different choices ourselves.
… now if I could just convince the nut-job down the road that a confederate flag in Idaho is ridiculous–and offensive!
Careful Josh. Now you’re defaming my family heritage.
“All of our family histories are full of positives and negatives.”
Eve meet serpent.
Wonderful post, Julie.
Yes, I think it was made abundantly clear that they’d rot in hell if they didn’t submit. Better got on to make the best of it…
Dave K (#52). He he.
I’m going to settle down now. I’ll keep reading comments, but I’m going to be quiet.
I think you bring up the Pew poll problem. You’re asking women who have (presumably) staked their futures on (1) the prophet speaking for God, (2) the church being true, and (3) polygamy being an essential part of the mix in order to receive salvation.
Do you think most of those who wanted so desperately to follow God that they would submit to sharing their husbands would privately admitting they are devastated, unsure, and think it’s wrong? What does that mean about them? About their faithfulness? About their worthiness?
Alison’s point brings up the additional problem of personal bias. If you’re sure polygamy is wrong, you can come up with all sort of things to discount anything good said about it from the participants. No one -really- liked it, they were just forced to pretend by their circumstance. if you’re sure it was right, you can just as easily discount any bad experiences as selection bias, e.g. “Who writes good stuff in Journals, anyway?”
I try simply taking them at their word; it worked well for some, horribly for others, and indifferently for even others. I don’t look forward to having to deal with that choice myself, and think it’s enough of a part of our religion that it should be discussed seriously by any couple before they get married.
Does any really think the initial question meant, “Did people in polygamous marriages ever feel joy about anything in their entire lives?”
The women who would find polygamy preferable to monogamy are most assuredly few and far between. And the reasons for the preference would probably bring about a very lively discussion. Let’s not try to pretend that these women were marinating in some kind of communal awesome sauce.
“it should be discussed seriously by any couple before they get married.”
Shirley, you can’t be serious? Abrhamic sacrifice is more a part of our religion, but my wife and I forgot to discuss that one. We also never talked about our strategy for fleeing into the wilderness and building impromptu intercontinental barges.
Lemuel (34),
I grew up next to a great number of polygamists. Next door neighbor, man across the road, 2 doors down from him, etc. About 10 groups with a couple golf shots. Some of them were bitter, some weren’t, and apparently in about the same proportion to the rest of society’s bitterness ratio (roughly the same ratio of bitterness/happiness as among the monogamous families I knew). The family next door raised great kids who were always happy and well adjusted. They weren’t closed off from social activity, forced into certain clothes, or kept hidden. They were a normal family except their dad had 4 wives. Saw them over a fence just last week when I was visiting my parents in Utah and they were all smiles and happiness. I’m not in their home, but I would suggest their plural marriage is a joyous one.
Alison – Do you REALLY!?!? think that joy can be cleanly separated from your progeny and that plural marriage was closely connected with families and children?
Again, I can’t imagine asking a mother if she’d rather her children were fathered by someone else and her children were in fact entirely different than who they were. I would naturally assume that barring a few exceptions, most women would have preferred monogamy from the outset. But as you suggested, the question was did plural marriage bring joy. Yes, I think many women, men, and children had joy.
If you want to talk about some sort of hypothetical joy differential, I’d guess neither you nor I have the light to engage in that sort of moral calculus. Eve was pretty good at it though.
DQ – perhaps it would be more in line with making a will. Surely, you and your spouse would want to work out your position on remarriage some time before the situation presents itself.
“Many people are leaving the church over the issues covered in these essays…”
People have leaving for the issues covered in these various essays since 1837. I, for one, like the idea that we are admitting we don’t know what we don’t know. If people want to leave for that too, then it will just be another in a long line of reasons people choose to leave. I suspect the net effect is far more positive than negative though.
Re: #46 Robert :
We don’t know how the earth was created or how long.
We don’t know how the atonement works
We don’t know why Jesus chose someone like Judas to be his representative
We don’t know details about God’s nature
We don’t know why God makes ordinances a universal requirement for mankind, even the dead.
We don’t know why the Bible says that God ordered the extermination of Canaan.
The list could go on, and on, and on, and on. At no point has God been keen on giving an overabundance of information, and at no point has a current administration in the priesthood had access to all the decision-making processes and revelation of past administrations. Just because something is controversial doesn’t make it a priority. God is in the business of saving and exalting. However, the scriptures teach that God will open up the mysteries to those that diligently, prayerfully, and worthily seek them.
Julie, that entire last paragraph was money. Well done!
Ah, polygamy, the very stickiest of topics. It puzzles me that some people can dismiss it with a shrug, some look forward to its comeback, and some (raises hand) are so horrified by the prospect they’d voluntarily and cheerfully chill with Jesus in the TK if universal polygamy ends up being the order of the Celestial day.
This conversation has presented one overarching question to my mind: Do we LDS believe in a worldview wherein the ends justify the means? As I scan through our historical ideas about God, I think that perhaps we do believe this. Emma’s agony was okay because of what it brought about. It’s a terrifying prospect when implemented by individuals.
You make a good point overall, Frank, but in this instance, given the choice to accept polygamy or rot in hell, there was likely a much greater pressure for believers to keep sweet than for them to reveal their concerns. Or even admit them.
DQ: AGAIN, do you really think that was the question? Do you really think it was, “Once the children are born would polygamous women want to give them up because of who their father was?” (And you took my restating, ignored it, and reframed as you originally did. I don’t think anyone has argued that NO ONE who was ever involved in polygamy ever had had a moment’s joy.)
AGAIN it seems the question was whether or not the prospect of sharing a spouse and then the actual fact of sharing one — given the alternative of having an equally great guy to yourself — in itself brought joy.
Exactly. And being told they must submit or be damned probably didn’t bring joy. Even if they ended up liking their kids and dealing with the fact that their husband was in the other room with the new honey.
Julie makes some really good points in this post regarding prophets and revelation, but it’s hard to dismiss plural marriage as simply Joseph misinterpreting inspiration. The way in which it was implemented – yes., The explanations of the eternal ramifications of it – yes. But the actual initialization of the practice? It’s so profoundly disruptive that it seems God either approved or didn’t, and if He didn’t, it’s hard to believe He would put up with his prophet teaching it. If prophets are allowed to lead us too far astray, there seems there’d be no point in having them.
Would you say the same of the Savior?
Exactly. And being told [he] must submit or [we’d be] damned probably didn’t bring joy.
You stand on very firm post-modern intellectual ground. Not just not Christian ground, with this line of reasoning.
Martin, what makes you think God would stand in the way of Joseph Smith unilaterally implementing polygamy? He certainly allowed, David, Solomon and other Old Testament prophets to do so. Yes, afterwards He often expressed His displeasure at what they had done, but He didn’t stand in their way, though He did require them to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Further, where in the scriptures has God ever commanded anyone to practice polygamy? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.)
I, for one, do not blithely accept the proposition that Joseph was forced at “sword point” to promote plural marriages. The dishonesty and heartache that accompanied its implementation and practice do not bear the fingerprints of the God I worship. Contrary to one of our most popular myths, God will not prevent His servants from leading us astray, but He will usually be there to help us pick up the pieces when they do.
EFF, David and Solomon distorted a practice of polygamy that preceded them by quite a lot. The fact that the scriptures contain no references to command such a practice doesn’t mean it wasn’t commanded, and even if it weren’t, the fact that Abraham and Jacob practiced it and were favored of God would seem to imply God didn’t find it all that repugnant. Culturally, plural marriage wouldn’t have seemed nearly as deviant in their time as it did in Joseph’s. They would have needed no revelation to practice what they saw around them. I would have thought Joseph would have.
But that’s beside the point. Julie’s point is that prophets don’t always (ever?) see clearly. However, if they’re no more to be trusted than anyone else, what is the point in having them? All of us can seek and receive revelation, so if we don’t believe those designated to be prophets, seers, and revelators can see better than us, then there’s no point having them. I think that’s especially true when it comes to something like plural marriage. I think an argument could be made that God commanded plural marriage (Joseph made it himself). I think an argument could be made that Joseph was a fallen prophet. I think an argument could be made that Joseph was a fraud. But to argue that he was actually a prophet but just slipped up a little with respect to a little thing like plural marriage seems inconsistent.
(Robert 46) “Are you satisfied with the series of “we don’t know” in the essays? We don’t know how the BofM was translated. We don’t know how the Book of Abraham came about. We don’t know about the origins of the racial ban or why. We don’t know much about why there was polygamy or why it stopped.Is there anything the church leadership knows about the controversial topics?”
Robert, I think we can safely say that on a scale of zero to omniscience, we know much more than nothing about all those topics. My point was just that perhaps inquiring about such things is less important to the Savior or an apostle than for example, building doctrinal understanding of the sacrament and promoting temple worship and helping the poor. Honestly, such historical oddities to me are a mark of truth. Do we really think the path to the tree of life is free of potential subjects for mockery?
I think couples ought to discuss before they marry whether the other one would consider remarrying for eternity a second time if widowed. Or even just for “time”. I realize you may not know until you are at that point in life to really know what you would do. But it also affects the grown children they will have.
It’s hard to think your dad and mom were so devoted exclusively to one another that they posed the “ideal”
temple marriage for a life time. Then when he’s widowed, he remarries at 79 because he misses having sex. I wish he would miss having sex with his wife that he loved and look forward to having that special bond ,only with her, again at some future point. But I’m a romantic at heart. I feel for the spouses who die a year after their spouse died–they died of a broken heart. To feel grief like that one had to have something very special. I don’t like to think people can be replaced. His children expected they knew what their family for eternity would look like and now there’s an extra “mom” that his first wife never gave her okay tor even met. I really hope his first wife is okay with that because if she isn’t, he really blew it. And he had a beautiful family. He hurt his children and made them wonder what their own spouse might do one day without their knowing and being okay with whomever is added. I can understand remarrying for time but not for eternity when your spouse still exists. To me,
it doesn’t seem like fidelity because we believe we’re still married to that person even though they’ve passed from this life. We consider it infidelity to fall in love and have an affair with someone else when we are already married but do so after your eternal companion has crossed the veil, and that makes it all right? Over a lifetime I’ve met lots of good men but I only met one man that I can love that way. I can’t love them all that way. I think most people are lucky to meet one person they feel that way about who feels likewise about them. We worship one God. I don’t know why we can’t love one person that one special way. Sorry for the length. This just brings up feelings.
Jill, I think most people feel the same way you do about the issue. There are a range of personal feelings on the subject. Elder Scott has said he feels he got it right the first time and didn’t want to mess anything up. Others like Elder Oaks and Nelson have remarried. My wife’s grandfather who sealed us remarried a few decades ago. His second wife had an inactive and in some ways abusive husband. A blended family in our ward has a couple who each had a spouse die, remarried and have kids from 3 marriages (2 prior and theirs together). They are quite sure that it was right for their circumstances, even though they have no clue how things will be later, they trust it will be sorted out. Not a trial that many have, I personally lean towards the Richard G. Scott approach as a young husband, but loneliness can be powerful.
@Jill,
You raise an issue that has come up for my wife’s family. Her mother passed away a few years ago from illness, and her father has subsequently met and married a twice-divorced woman who had never been sealed to anyone. They were sealed in the temple, giving my wife a new “insta-mom” in the eternities. My wife was ok with this (the new wife really needs to be sealed to *someone*, right?) until she had an intense feeling in the sealing room that her own mother was watching and was seriously ticked off. I think that my FIL and MIL had talked about my FIL remarrying before she passed away, but I don’t think that either of them contemplated a sealing as part of the bargain.
My wife is surprisingly nonchalant about this, figuring that this is between her parents (“Oh boy, Dad is going to be in *trouble*!”), but it’s raised the opportunity for the two of us to have the very discussion you’re talking about. Bottom line, I could get remarried, particularly if something happens to my wife while our kids are still very young. But no sealings to other women! Personally, between not having a strong desire to share the quirks of intimacy with anyone but my better half, and all the horror stories I hear about mid-life LDS singles dating, I’m not sure that I’m particularly interested in the idea of remarriage if — heaven forbid — it should become a possibility. But at least some ground rules have been established.
Whose to say the spouses who have moved on to the other side aren’t also dating? Perhaps they are reconnecting with old flames-emotionally at least-or developing a romantic relationship with a new person. Just like those left behind in mortality may resume dating and remarry, perhaps those who have moved on to the spirit world get the same opportunity. Loneliness isn’t unique to mortality. That could make for some interesting reunions in the spirit world as spouses both end up there with a possible retinue to greet each other.
Julie, I always look forward to reading your excellent thoughts. I think I’m officially a groupie.
Used your words in my own polygamy post yesterday:
http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-puzzle-of-polygamy_23.html
Why isn’t anyone talking about Section 132? I realize it came after the fact to some extent, but it seems to me that it DID provide a fairly specifc set of bullet point type Instructions to Joseph on how to practice polygamy. The problem it, he didn’t follow those instructions.
Excellent analysis. I was having a bit of an allergic reaction to the Sunday School manual’s take on Amos just a couple weeks ago–it will take some time for our standard commentary on the scriptures to catch up to these more honest recent statements about prophecy (including Uchtdorf’s admission that the Church and its leaders have made mistakes).
Someone may have pointed this out in a comment, but there’s a fourth essay that you didn’t link to:
https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng
Cameron N (71)
I understand your point that there are many other important topics that deserve our attention. However, the past leaders created these controversies through their behavior and doctrinal claims. Its great that the current leadership is sort of taking responsibility and not still trying to simply bury the past. Nevertheless, I find the “we don’t know” hard to stomach when they claim to be in tune with God all the time, making major decisions regarding issues such as excommunicating Kate Kelly, lowering the mission age, or calling new leaders. Yet they can’t ask for clarification on these issues that are driving people away? Isn’t a reasonable conclusion that they are not what they claim, that the church is not what it claims?
FWIW – couples can discuss whether they would remarry upon the death of the other, whether they would be sealed, and so forth, till the cows come home. In reality, it doesn’t mean anything. People change. Our thoughts change, Our understanding changes. There are lots of people who say “I would never do such and such,” but when they find themselves in the circumstance, get an attitude adjustment. I imagine most of us in happy marriages do not actively envision ourselves ever married to another spouse. Yet, it happens to people all the time. I would love to hear from people who’ve actually been there and done that as opposed to those of us who can only imagine how it must feel. And I’m with Anon 10/24/14 at 7:04 am.. I think there is a whole lot more relationship building going on in the Spirit World that we’re aware of. I don’t think predeceased spouses are sitting around, watching their surviving spouses “move on” in mortality, and just jumping up and down with happiness over it. I have to believe they are “moving on,” too. If not, it would seem really unfair to be a spouse that died after only a couple of years of marriage, only to have your surviving spouse pick another couple of spouses along the way (Think Joseph Fielding Smith, Bryant Hinckley)
Pierce (64), Cameron N (71), robert (46) makes a good point. The LDS leaders and members make strong claims to know all sorts of things about nature, physics, and history. They should be able to produce cogent explanations about the controversial aspects of its history and doctrine that seem to contradict its central claims and mar the character of Joseph Smith. After all, the LDS church is asking people to donate thousands of dollars and devote hundreds of hours of their time each year in its support. Furthermore, it expects its members to give answers to tough questions posed by investigators and other members. It doesn’t make too much sense to donate so much time and money and emotional effort to doctrinal and historical claims when all the organization and its defenders can give as an explanation is, “we don’t know, so continue to accept what we say without question.”
Is it ever o.k. to convince a woman to marry you by putting her salvation on the line? No. Never.
Polygamy was a success because of the righteous posterity that flowed from the practice?
Were there really SO many bad apples in the church that would have made poor fathers, thus forcing the leaders to take up the slack? These men had the faith to cross the plains and join the Saints, but were still so lacking spiritually that the Lord couldn’t raise a righteous seed through them?
If sharing a father with dozens of siblings is worth it as long as you have the right last name, what does that say about the value we place on a man’s role to nurture his kids? What does that say about leader worship?
Do any of the essays shed light on whether or not this was something that the elite leaders did….or do they downplay this alpha male aspect and say that “only a small percentage” of people practiced it?
One essays reads “Inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households.” Can’t help but picture a poor family with nothing but a handcart of belongings to their name, singing to the eligible daughter “here’s your one chance Fancy don’t let me down….just be nice to the gentlemen Fancy, they’ll be nice to you.”
I better just end there.
@IDIAT,
Maybe those on the other side are indeed “moving on” for their own part, but that seems to be taking an area that’s already fraught with speculation and injecting a whole new level of the same. At what point on the other side do we stop building relationships and making new matches? Eventually eternity starts looking like a drawn out game of speed dating.
Sure you can talk with one’s spouse until the cows come home, but it doesn’t hurt to have a discussion expectations and worries.
On a separate note, it’s interesting to see so many of the voices who’ve demanded more openness and honesty from the Church with regard to its history are using these essays and ones that have preceded it as a cudgel to bludgeon claims of prophetic authority. The discussion should be much more nuanced than that, but some folks are going to kvetch no matter what.
Some kvetchers bring up great points…..nuanced or not.
Reminds me of the lyrics to that one song, “Kvetchers gonna kvetch kvetch kvetch kvetch kvetch kvetch…”
Then clearly, Jessica, you aren’t counted among the kvetchers.
“Kvetchers gonna kvetch”……the national anthem of hit birds
Robert: “when they claim to be in tune with God all the time, making major decisions regarding issues such as excommunicating Kate Kelly, lowering the mission age, or calling new leaders.”
First, when you say “claiming to be in tune” in this regard, you are crossing two different ideas and claims. One is “being in tune” with the Spirit and letting that aid in decision-making, and the other is “receiving specific revelation” on a given subject. These things that you mention are not claimed to have come by a direct revelation, and reflect policy changes (that are presumably inspired) or policy enforcement. So it’s not like we’re getting a D&C-like outpouring of revelation and God is conveniently skipping out on the controversial issues.
“Isn’t a reasonable conclusion that they are not what they claim, that the church is not what it claims?”
Sure, it’s reasonable. But not the only reasonable conclusion, especially for those who believe in the church. For me, the more reasonable explanation is that apostles are not what WE always expect them to be. And no doubt this is in large part due to the culture that apostles have propagated. But I have not seen an official revelation come through in a long time, so for me, it causes me to evaluate the assumptions built up around how the heaven-apostle relationship works. Personally, I don’t see direct church-wide revelations happening, but I still believe they are inspired leaders who hold certain priesthood keys.
Steve, allow me address you points in sections here:
“The LDS leaders and members make strong claims to know all sorts of things about nature, physics, and history.”
Ultimately, the only things that we can make authoritative claims on is what the Lord has revealed to us; like the Atonement, ordinances, plan of salvation, nature of God, etc. It is true that over the years leaders and other members have gone outside of this and made strong claims, but I like to think that we are slowly learning our lesson. You’ll notice that our apostles don’t opine much on obscure doctrines or secular knowledge much anymore. This past overreach, in my opinion, has caused consternation and is the reason for the new essays.
“They should be able to produce cogent explanations about the controversial aspects of its history and doctrine.”
This is non-sequitur. What standard are you judging them by? Besides, these essays are a decent attempt to produce cogent explanations. The priesthood ban essay basically points to racist attitudes of the time. This one describes the practice of polygamy, though the reasons “why” may not be satisfactorily answered at this time. I would rather wait for a revelation–personal or churchwide–than get a an opinion or official statement as to “why.” And that’s not always up to the apostles. Besides, having an official answer would most likely do absolutely nothing in terms of assuaging negative feelings on these topics.
“It doesn’t make too much sense to donate so much time and money and emotional effort to doctrinal and historical claims when all the organization and its defenders can give as an explanation is, “we don’t know, so continue to accept what we say without question.”
First, nobody donates money to “claims.” They donate money in order to help the poor and to provide the means to distribute the gospel and ordinances of Jesus Christ. Understanding fringe doctrine and controversial aspects of our history is not the priority of any disciple of the church, though many may choose to take it on (which is a good thing). If any person is building their foundation on whether or not they can fully understand every piece of controversy, then they will undoubtedly fall.
In saying that, I fully support researching and finding answers, and always look forward to receiving more information and hopefully some sort of revelation on the subject. Or…perhaps a person can depend on their own revelations on the mysteries that beset them.
““we don’t know, so continue to accept what we say without question.”
Please tell me this is hyperbole of yours. Otherwise, this a disingenuous over-statement that stems from the idea that we should still remain faithful while we seek what we are looking for. You can do better than that.
These may be relevant to some of the discussion talking about expectations around leadership, knowledge, and prophecy.
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/03/faith-revelation-and-jewish-parallels/
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/02/an-offhand-apologion-and-testimony-of-sorts-and-some-reflections/
@Ardis #16
for reasons others have already pointed out, this is an obvious non sequitur.
but here’s another reason:
by taking his polls at *LDS firesides* your speaker was excluding from the sample all descendants of faithful polygamists who are no longer in the church. for all he knows, that group of people is larger, perhaps even far larger, than the number of descendants who are still in.
it’s understandable that a 15 year old would be taken in by such nonsense, but the speaker should have known better.
Dave K wrote:
i think episiotomy is a great thing because I am here because of it!
(sorry, mom)
@Steve “The LDS leaders and members make strong claims to know all sorts of things about nature, physics, and history.” they do?
@Rob – “we don’t know” is not what you’re getting. You’re getting well rounded walls of text with citations.
@Cameron, to mention a few: God has a body of flesh and bones, people lived in ancient America who wrote the Book of Mormon, Jesus resurrected from the dead. I’ve heard many people mention how they somehow know such claims to be true.
Steve,
The things you mention are really only known spiritually. The prophets/apostles don’t make claims about the laws of physics, the precise date of some historical event nor do they speculate on the mechanics of evolution. I am not sure why we then expect essays like these to be some kind of history dissertation that attempts to explain everything.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with me–I appreciate that. I was told by a stake president that there would be a lot of switching around of spouses in the Millennium and I am inclined to agree. People do change and grow, etc. And we don’t remember those we once knew and may reconect with again in the next realm. Yes, loneliness is powerful. And I find it hard to be all alone. But gays are expected to exist that way an entire life time and so are those who never marry. It’s just as hard for them to go it alone and they have no choice. So I just think the spouse left behind can abide as well for the few years they have left when they’re really elderly. But as IDAT says, you don’t really know what you’ll choose until you’re there.
And, some older eople are not in their right minds anymore either. Grief can really do a number on people.
Pierce, your entire rebuttal begs the question of how do we know some words uttered by men who are recognized as prophets in the LDS tradition are revelation and reflect God’s words, and which are not. Furthermore, do you really want to claim to believe in a God who commanded certain individuals to marry 14 year-old girls and others to exterminate entire villages, including the women and children (in reference to comment #64)? OK, now maybe the current religious leaders are willing to say that those actions were not commanded by God. But is it wrong to venture guesses as to why ancient Hebrews reportedly killed women and children in battle (hatred, xenophobia) and why JS married a 14 year-old girl (lust for teenagers)? Heck, I could just claim that I received a revelation from God that informed me that JS married a 14-year old because he lusted after teenage girls. What could you say to that? It’s not true? That I didn’t receive revelation? How could you prove that I didn’t?
Now I commend the LDS church for the essays. But in many ways, these essays only add confusion. They claim to not know things, for which there appear to be fairly obvious answers, when convenient. I often wonder if the LDS leaders would allow exception or encourage its members to allow exception to the claims of other religious leaders who are accused of violating the law, or at least doing something widely seen as highly immoral. Should we allow exception for today’s polygamist groups who practice child marriage? It could be that many of the 14 year-old girls in those polygamist groups are relatively content to marry and consummate the marriages, for they know nothing else. Should we allow them a pass because they claim that God commanded them to do such things and because they are acting upon Joseph Smith’s precedent? Should we just throw our hands to the air and claim that we don’t know why they are doing the things that they are doing?
ABM, I wasn’t talking about how we know things. I was simply pointing out that the LDS leaders do make bold claims about physics and nature. Take for instance Joseph Smith’s instructions given at Ramus in 1843 recorded in D&C 131:7-8:
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.
But alas, I digress, for this is not terribly relevant to the OP.
Pierce:
Maybe if the Church took a more confessional tone in the attitude of repentance, the questioning and disaffected would not be so upset? The “we don’t know” seems evasive when the church has had a history of covering up the past. At least now it is more open, but it could go further. Polygamy looks like a justification for something else. Why not just admit that does look bad and move on. There is no excuse for the racial ban in the past, so apologize. The “we don’t know” looks bad when we know more than they wish to admit.
100. :-)
Steve,
I feel your angst. I think any adult with any kind of moral development will nod in agreement that LDS culture has issues with authority … and that spills over into our perception of history.
So, I agree with your sentiment.
I’m troubled by the emotional angst in your post. Probably because I’ve felt that plenty in my own life. It seems the juggling act for some of us is to recognize the deep problems and then move forward as a person of faith, all while encouraging those we love who come to their own conclusions. That’s kind of what I’m trying to do.
“It seems the juggling act for some of us is to recognize the deep problems and then move forward as a person of faith, all while encouraging those we love who come to their own conclusions.”
OK, sure, as long as it is not presumed that all of us draw the same conclusions or be willing to stand in defense. I just don’t want to feel obligated to stand up for Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year-old. If I’m asked about this by someone (be they LDS or not), I will simply acknowledge that this was wrongdoing on the part of Joseph Smith, for I feel quite confident in saying that there has never been a time or place in human history when it was morally right to marry a 14 year-old (whether or not you intend to consummate the marriage, which I can only Joseph Smith did). Of course I’m not as condemning of people who do so in times and environments where it is common. But it is still morally wrong. And I certainly won’t accept that God commanded this, ever. For if God is unchanging, why are we to believe that God is so capricious with commands (i.e. sometimes willfully killing women and children and sometimes having sex with 14 year-olds in the bonds of polygamous matrimony is OK, but most the time it is not)?
Robert:
…when they claim to be in tune with God all the time, making major decisions regarding issues such as excommunicating Kate Kelly, lowering the mission age, or calling new leaders.”
Pierce:
Pierce, I agree with your conclusion that we as a church are NOT regularly getting “a D&C-like outpouring of revelation.” But I do think that the church leaders imply that we are as a means of encouraging compliance. I do think they imply that changes are further on the spectrum toward “God’s will” and less toward “sounds good to me.”
When the mission changes were announced and Elder Holland was asked why women weren’t allowed to serve two-year missions like men, he said, “We felt, in short, one miracle at a time.”
Does this not promote the idea that the age change was, in fact, miraculous? That, in fact, the GAs did not have the power to move beyond the miracle God had already provided them? That we must wait patiently on the Lord for the next big thing?
I have been castigated for noting BYU has created advertising partnerships with companies that objectify women. I have seen people demeaned for saying garments don’t fit functionally. People are vilified by other members for noting that Joseph Smith’s polyandry IS STILL a problematic issue.
In all cases it has been because if you have any complaint or concern about anything in church structure or governance (even BYU football advertising) you are “contradicting the brethren” or “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed” and, therefore, obviously speaking against God himself.
I’m hopeful that we can come to grips with having human leaders who are faithful and inspired, but not, in fact, walking and talking with God on most decisions.
Alison, the quote you reference from Elder Holland actually supports Pierce’s point, your focus on the word “miraculous” notwithstanding. Please look at the first two words of that quote, where Elder Holland lets us in on who was behind that decision.
Steve:
“Pierce, your entire rebuttal begs the question of how do we know some words uttered by men who are recognized as prophets in the LDS tradition are revelation and reflect God’s words, and which are not.”
I’m OK with that. It’s true that this is a manifestation of a larger issue, and one worth pursuing. There will be a difference of opinion among Latter-Day Saints regarding this, and our religion allows us to have differences of opinions.
“Furthermore, do you really want to claim to believe in a God who…,”
There is nothing in D&C regarding a commandment to be sealed to Helen Kimball. What was revealed was to seal himself to more than one woman. So there seems to be a human element to it. The evidence doesn’t a support a consummation of that sealing, or most others. So I don’t know what it really entailed or how it was viewed. As for the slaughter of the Canaanites, I know that it was written by someone anciently, but don’t have any latter-day revelations that God approved of the action that was attributed to him in the OT. Since it doesn’t seem consistent with the God of the NT/BoM/D&C, I’ve put it on the shelf. I’m not a biblical literalist.
” What could you say to that?”
I would say good for you. I haven’t received that revelation, and the church hasn’t either, and it sounds ludicrous to me, so I am not obliged to believe it.
“They claim to not know things, for which there appear to be fairly obvious answers”
They are being honest, first of all. And for that I am very appreciative. The point of these essays is to remove the speculation that has existed over the years, not add to it. Obvious answers? Again, saying there is a definitive answer means that you have had a revelation yourself about these things. I’m not offended or worried that these essays exist to state things as they were without trying to make excuses or reasons for them. If people are more confused because they have received failry good information, then that is on them. Hopefully they’ll learn more about it on their own if they are interested.
“Should we allow exception for today’s polygamist groups who practice child marriage?”
Comparing 19th century polygamy to the polygamy that these nuts are practicing today is futile. It is completely different. It sounds like you need to read more about Josephs sealing to Helen Mar Kimball if you think that she moved in with Joseph and he was satisfying his lust with her.
Felix: “Maybe if the Church took a more confessional tone in the attitude of repentance, the questioning and disaffected would not be so upset?”
Regarding polygamy, what does the church need to “confess?” What does the Church need to “repent” of? They received a revelation for polygamy, and they practiced it. Nothing to apologize for, even if people find it offensive or repulsive. No matter what the church says today, people are going hate that polygamy happened.
“There is no excuse for the racial ban in the past, so apologize.”
First, who exactly should do the apologizing? The First Presidency? They should apologize for individuals in the past? That’s interesting. Kind of like how I should apologize to a black man for my predecessors practicing slavery, and pay reprimands? It’s a weird thought. Racism existed, and me or Thomas Monson apologizing for it is an absurd thought to me.
And that’s leaving out the possibility that the ban was inspired (even though I reject that, but others do, and it is a legitimate possibility).
“The “we don’t know” looks bad when we know more than they wish to admit.”
Think about what you’re saying. If Brigham Young was the one to institute a ban, who is going to speak for the dead person and explain why it was instituted? What they may need to apologize for is for not meeting your unrealistic expectations.
Allison: “But I do think that the church leaders imply that we are as a means of encouraging compliance. I do think they imply that changes are further on the spectrum toward “God’s will” and less toward “sounds good to me.”
You won’t get an argument from me there. But I do have faith that they have certain keys and authority to conduct the church and institute policies. I also believe they are inspired. So while not everything they teach are JS-like revelations, I feel their authority carries weight in my life.
“Does this not promote the idea that the age change was, in fact, miraculous?”
This wasn’t given as a revelation similar to the one in 1978. It was a policy change that seemed to have been inspired. There is still a difference to me.
“That we must wait patiently on the Lord for the next big thing?”
You might be disappointed. What we have actually been taught is to seek the Lord ourselves and live the restored gospel that we have been taught. If the Lord needs to tell us anything else collectively, then so be it.
“I’m hopeful that we can come to grips with having human leaders who are faithful and inspired, but not, in fact, walking and talking with God on most decisions.”
I am in full agreement. Coming to this realization was difficult for me, but now that I accept the Brethren for who I think they really are, rather than what I had previously assumed, I find these issues easier to understand and can focus more on achieving my own personal revelation. Others might be too fragile. And that is why any sort of transition will be slow on an institutional level. You’re there, and that’s all that ultimately matters.
“We believe that people will be punished for their own sins that they do not repent of, and not for actions of people who died a long time ago that some now living perceive as sins.”
14th article of faith candidate anyone?
@Steve (102) I think many here are under the assumption that a 20th/21st century 14 year old is the equivalent to a 1840s 14 year old. I would submit that 14 in Joseph Smith’s day often had the emotional and practical maturity of most 18-21 year olds today.
It is only in our current culture of enlightenment that people perpetuate childhood for decades. I submit that this is exceptional in the history of the world, and I don’t think that in a culture vacuum, it is inherently wrong to marry a 14 year old, depending on the specific situation. That said, I would not feel it appropriate to defend actions of something we know so little about.
With regards to changability, if God is a parent, then his principles and rules are consistent, but adapt to contexts and needs of children, like any good parent. Most parents of multiple children can easily list off how different approaches, rules, and punishments motivate children differently. So it is with God’s children. And just like a child, we can’t fully understand the parent’s reasons or wisdom, no matter how much we think we should or want to.
Joseph Smith had married women sealed to him. Those women were sealed to their husbands ,correct me if I’m wrong. That means Joseph is sealed to those men as well. It seems that he was putting the people he was closest to in this life, into his personal family for eternity. The teenage girl would have been sealed to her parents. And Joseph being sealed to her is also sealed to her parents—they were very close friends. It does not mean he had sex with her or with her parents for that matter.It might turn out that he was sealed to her and the word “marriage” was written in place of sealing. Yes, eternal marriages are sealings , but not all sealings are marriages. Sealings simply mean that the relationships that exist here, can exist for eternity. We seal our children to us–we don’t have sex with our children, aunts, uncles ,etc. although we are sealed to them. Joseph is being maligned and he isn’t here to answer what he was doing and why. Everyone else is answering for him–it isn’t fair. And yes, we live in the 21st Century. Our world is completely different.
Um, Jill, to avoid our 21st century bias, just see how those closest to Joseph Smith (i.e. Brigham Young) interpreted polygamy. It was most certainly sexual. Unless you think Brigham Young profoundly misunderstood this doctrine (or worse). Sorry, but there’s just no easy way through this one.
Brigham Young had sex with his multiple women wives and had children with them. We all know what polygamy was and that it was lived. That’s about all we know. Personally, my husband had better be like Elder Scott.
The flow of the comments has moved away from the post a bit, but here is a reflection: Has the decision to post four separate essays on polygamy (one overview, three detailed discussions by period) rather than one very long essay unintentionally brought more attention to the topic than intended? And does it perhaps complicate the topic? It is clear that the question “What does the LDS Church think of polygamy?” can only be answered if first one specifies a time frame, and posting three different detailed essays highlights this temporal disconnect. I wonder if we will see another shift over the course of the next generation or two?
Pierce, even if JS never actually consummated his marriage to Helen Kimball, the idea of marrying a 14 year-old (even if it is symbolically) is still immoral.
“I haven’t received that revelation, and the church hasn’t either, and [the idea that I received a revelation that JS was satisfying his bodily lusts] sounds ludicrous to me”
And the idea that JS received a revelation to practice polygamy and that it was a good idea to fulfill God’s supposed command by marrying other men’s wives and two 14 year-olds is not ludicrous, or less ludicrous than me saying (or claiming to have a revelation) that JS did this to satisfy his lusts?
“Comparing 19th century polygamy to the polygamy that these nuts are practicing today is futile.”
Sure, there may be some minor differences (i.e. some polygamist groups have resorted to incest for lack of followers, also some polygamists such as Kody Brown are much more sensitive to the idea of consent and are arguably more enlightened), but are they really that different? You should read more about how Brigham Young practiced and preached polygamy and then take a look at Colorado City. I can’t imagine 19th century Mormon polygamy, particularly under Brigham Young, being somehow more enlightened and protective of individual freedoms than today’s polygamist groups.
Why can’t more active Mormons just up and call the practice of marrying teenagers for what it is? Morally wrong.
Cameron N, would you be willing to allow exception for the widespread practice of marrying girls as young as 14 in much of Africa and the Middle East? I can only imagine that many of those girls, given the responsibilities that they have to take on at such an early age, are more emotionally mature than most 14 year-olds in the modern US. The fact is that it was very rare in 19th century US for men to marry 14 year-olds, and most people saw this as morally reprehensible. It is also a fact that civilized human society around the world has been exerting a massive effort for well over a century to protect the rights of teenage girls to not be forced into marriages.
I think that you and Pierce need to take a big step back and realize just how crazy you sound trying to make exception for marriages to 14 year-olds (it’s probably high time you just stopped defending this by now). You seem to have no hesitation in condemning adult men marrying teenagers in the present, even other groups who stem from the same tradition of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but you make this huge exception for JS and BY.
I wanted to chime in just to call attention to this brilliant statement EFF made in their comment @ 69:
“God will not prevent His servants from leading us astray, but He will usually be there to help us pick up the pieces when they do.”
This rings true to me.
I think we should embrace our past with open arms. Instead of all the justifications and spin, just admit that Joseph Smith loved women of all ages. Polygamy was simply his way of expressing this great love. For Joseph Smith so loved the women of the world that he gave up monogamy to his only true wife that we might understand what love truly is.
Steve: You start by accusing JS of lusting after 14 year old girls, and then acknowledge that it wasn’t consummated. Can you explain that to me? Either Joseph was ignorant about how to sate his burning lust, or you’re ignorant about the events. I think it’s clear which one.
You feel this arrangement is immoral. Fine. You, however, are not the arbiter of morality. How the early saints viewed plural sealings is much different than how you view polygamy–at least as far as JS goes.
You have a misinformed view (willingly or otherwise) on Helen Mar Kimball and you ignore all cultural context. So perhaps that is why we’re not following you down your rabbit hole.
Steve smith 102: “OK, sure, as long as it is not presumed that all of us draw the same conclusions or be willing to stand in defense.”
I’m in. FWIW, my current perception of Joseph Smith is that he was unfaithful and deceptive toward his wife, he used his position of power within a community as leverage to wed single women, he used his position and deception to marry other men’s spouses, and he used his age and status to gain sexual access to a 14-year-old girl. All of this violated social rules of his own day, and in our own day he would rightfully be sitting in prison. It’s exhausting that some continue to rationalize Joseph’s actions. Please just stop.
All that being said …
Joseph has the misfortune of being born in the modern era. If he were born earlier, say 2500 years earlier, he would receive the benefit of being an ancient prophet. Time seems to ease the gross misconduct of prophets.
Part of me likes having a founder who was both a prophet and a dirt bag. Part of me thrills at a God who would reveal his secrets to a pariah. … Such a view obviously doesn’t put me in the mood to sing “Praise to the Man.” But, my view does give me this: If God could do great good with Joseph, surely he could do good with me too.
(And, I’m a bit indifferent about how the institutional church deals with Brother Joseph.)
(One last thing. I could kill a man who attempted to use his status to gain access to my daughter. Seriously. I could kill that man with my bare hands.)
PIerce, it appears that your argumentative ground has become so shaky that you actually have to resort to distorting what I said to try to claim some pointless victory against me. You’re behavior is appearing more petty and pathetic each comment. I never claimed that Joseph Smith didn’t consummate the marriage with Helen Mar Kimball. The fact that you cannot even bring yourself to pronounce marriage to a 14 year-old as an immorality and that you try to invoke cultural context (which doesn’t help you one bit since people in 19th century America were overwhelmingly condemning of marriages of 14 year-olds to adult males) in defense of Joseph Smith’s action is quite telling of your moral cowardice.
Josh Smith, thank you.
You’re welcome to give me an actual rebuttal, Steve, and to answer my question about how Joseph’s lust was fulfilled without sex. Or continue gnashing your teeth and hurling insults.
You keep conveniently dodging my main points, Pierce. I have every right to call you out on your childish little game. You keep on indirectly defending the marriages of adult males to 14 year-old girls and slaughter of Canaanite women and children with your mealymouthed, disingenuous appeal of ‘I don’t know,’ and I’ll keep calling a spade a spade with full confidence that I’m on the right side of the debate.
Steve,
I’ll try to be more direct than Pierce. It appears that either killing is occasionally permitted or commanded by God or that story is a mistranslation that Joseph did not see fit to prioritize. I doubt it, given the Laban story in the BoM, or the slaughtered anti-nephi-lehis, and the fact that atrocities are committed every day in the world since Cain. What are we supposed to do, pick a stance just so we can continue the argument? I can’t speak for the man upstairs on that one, I can only say that it appears death isn’t the ultimate tragedy from his point of view, but I find it as abhorrent as most 1st world dwellers in the 21st century and it happens to still be #2 on the worst sin rankings…
In terms of marriages of males to 14 year old girls, from what I can tell we don’t have enough info to draw conclusions. Feel free to enlighten me on the subject. If we take his word for it, God has done stranger things like letting his only begotten son, the savior of the world, be born into a household appearing to be illegitimate to a teen mom, spoken to teenagers over mature adults, etc. allowing his children to experience mortality with almost no recollection of their pre mortal life with him.
Also, according to the foundation of science for the last 400 years “there is no such thing as immaterial matter” is perhaps one of the tamest statements you can make. I guess perhaps in the age of theoretical nonsense hypothesis like dark matter, consciousness is an illusion, etc it might go against the grain, if you’re into that sort of thing. =)
Thanks for the discussion.