66 replies to this topic

[John Corrill]

Nighthawke:  ...unlike you I can't imagine an FLDS Helen Mar "writing and publishing lengthy defenses for the FLDS and contemporary polygamy in general." I just don't have that vivid an imagination.

John Corrill: One doesn't have to look far to find modern, intelligent women defending contemporary polygamy.  One example is here:  http://www.principlevoices.org/  Helen Mar Kimball is probably these womens hero.  They publish books, they lobby the legislature and attorney general, they attend and present at conferences, they speak to the national media, etc, etc.   I've met many of these women, and they would volunteer that as far as polygamy is concerned, they are trying to pattern their lives after Joseph Smith.  Again, the point is, we can learn SO much about polygamy in Nauvoo and early Utah, by observing modern polygamy.  The FLDS may not be an EXACT copy.  Another offshoot polygamist sect may not be an EXACT copy, but over and over again, when a culture is built around polygamy as it's defining social element, common themes re-emerge.

[John Corrill]

Ref:  I get the sense that the LDS Church choses to make every attempt to distance itself from this past practice. If it was such an important and meaningful practice, as commanded by God, why such the "avoidance"?

John Corrill:  Good question, Ref.  I've raised this same issue on several occaisions, and have essentially been told that even though I have participated in 99.999999% of all church meetings, conferences, seminary, institute, Family Home Evening, church magazines and news papers and missionary service during my 35 years in the LDS Church, I obviously missed that Sunday School Lesson in February of 1972 when it was briefly mentioned that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.  Never mind that I was probably in the cryroom, in my mothers arms, eating Cheerios.  I'm SUCH a slacker!!!  If I had only been there, I would not have this mistaken view that we as a church "avoid" and distance ourselves from our polygamist heritage - particularly Joseph Smith.

Edited by John Corrill, 20 September 2006 - 09:23 AM.

[Nighthawke]

Ref, on Sep 20 2006, 12:04 PM, said:

Nighthawke said:

If one is interested in a glimpse of nineteenth century Mormonism and its practice of polygamy I recommend a trip to the library or bookstore and read what those nineteenth century Mormons wrote about it.

What's troubling and puzzling about this issue is that one cannot find anything at the official LDS website, LDS.org when it comes to the origin, practice, acceptance or even reasons for polygamy during the days of Smith and Young.  I get the sense that the LDS Church choses to make every attempt to distance itself from this past practice.  If it was such an important and meaningful practice, as commanded by God, why such the "avoidance"?

As a matter of fact, they seem to show a rather disrespect for the practice in their "History of the Prophets" section of their website.  They specifically refer to the "monogamous" marriages (and dates thereof) of all Prophets, beginning with George Albert Smith Jr., as "Significant Events" for each prophet.  But for all Prophets before George Albert Smith Jr., who all practiced polygamy, not one of their polygamous wives or marriages is even mentioned.  Should we conclude that they were less "significant" than monagomous marriages?  The Church is totally silent on these polygamous marriages, in direct contrast to reflecting monagamous marriages of Prophets as "Significant Events"!!

Why the official embarrasment and/or avoidance of something that was supposedly so sacred, meaningful and special for these prophests and their respective polygamous wives?

Why do you think the Church needs to post everything on the "origin, practice, acceptance or even reasons for polygamy during the days of Smith and Young" on its official website? To save people the trip of going to the library or bookstore?

As for the Teachings of the Presidents manuals, I have the John Taylor book in front of me right now. If you look at the foontnotes you'll notice that the manual quotes extensively from B.H. Roberts, The Life of John Taylor. So I just went down to the basement, fed the cats, and picked up Roberts' book off the shelf and flipped to the back of the book and sure enough all of his wives and children are listed along with photos and "Biographies of the Wives of John Taylor". I just checked GospeLink and the information is also there. That took all of two minutes.

Are you suggesting that members of the Church can't do that for themselves?

I don't believe the Church is embarrassed about polygamy, if they were then why footnote something to a book that has all that information at one's fingertips?

By the way, lds.org isn't completely devoid of information on polygamy, I've demonstrated here before that the information is there--one just has to click on a few extra icons to find it.

Edited by Nighthawke, 20 September 2006 - 09:48 AM.

[Nighthawke]

John Corrill, on Sep 20 2006, 12:15 PM, said:

Nighthawke:  ...unlike you I can't imagine an FLDS Helen Mar "writing and publishing lengthy defenses for the FLDS and contemporary polygamy in general." I just don't have that vivid an imagination.

John Corrill: One doesn't have to look far to find modern, intelligent women defending contemporary polygamy.  One example is here:  http://www.principlevoices.org/  Helen Mar Kimball is probably these womens hero.  They publish books, they lobby the legislature and attorney general, they attend and present at conferences, they speak to the national media, etc, etc.   I've met many of these women, and they would volunteer that as far as polygamy is concerned, they are trying to pattern their lives after Joseph Smith.  Again, the point is, we can learn SO much about polygamy in Nauvoo and early Utah, by observing modern polygamy.  The FLDS may not be an EXACT copy.  Another offshoot polygamist sect may not be an EXACT copy, but over and over again, when a culture is built around polygamy as it's defining social element, common themes re-emerge.

My posts have been specific to the FLDS, I wrote, "...unlike you I can't imagine an FLDS Helen Mar..." to which you responded with a non-FLDS organization for your example.  

Principle Voices is in no way affiliated with Warren Jeffs' group and certainly does not defend or condone Warren Jeffs' ideas on polygamy:

Quote

Q: Is Warren Jeffs connected with your group?

Anne Wilde (Community Relations Director, Principle Voices): Not at all. Warren Jeffs and the Fundamentalist LDS church is only one of many fundamentalist groups. I've never met him, and I don't particularly want to meet him. I know some of the people who have left his community, but I am glad to say I am not associated with his leadership in any way.

Q: Why are you glad about it?

Wilde: I understand that he has exercised a lot of control over his people and has condoned and even married underage women. I believe that a girl ought to be 18, generally speaking, before she gets married, in monogamy or polygamy. And so there are things I've heard have gone on in that community that I am glad I am not a part of. And yet I still respect a lot of people that are members of that group.

I am glad you brought up this issue of young girls being taken into marriages.

I do not condone that or recommend it.

A Second Wife's Tale

I'm glad to hear that you talked to some of these women; so, what did they think about your thoughts and feelings with reference to Joseph Smith?

Edited by Nighthawke, 20 September 2006 - 09:49 AM.

[Ref]

Nighthawke said:

I don't believe the Church is embarrassed about polygamy, if they were then why footnote something to a book that has all that information at one's fingertips?

If they weren't, why not show the same respect for polygamous wive's of Prophets as they do for monogamous wives of Prophets and reflrect them as "Significant Events"?  Why not mention them at all on an official website that is supposed to give a history of each Prophet?  Why only mention the monogamous wives?

Why only in a "footnote" to an unofficial publication when it would be so simple to include the sacred and meaningful polygamous marriages of the Church founders as a "Significant Event", in the very websight  they do for monogamous marriages of past prophets?  Why do they so obviously differentiate the "significance" of these two types of marriages in the same websight?  It would be so easy to include, reflect a consistency in content, and show the same respect for these women of supposedly sacred marriages as their monogaous counterparts!  

Why?

[USU78]

Nighthawke, on Sep 20 2006, 09:47 AM, said:

Principle Voices is in no way affiliated with Warren Jeffs' group and certainly does not defend or condone Warren Jeffs' ideas on polygamy:

Quote

Q: Is Warren Jeffs connected with your group?

Anne Wilde (Community Relations Director, Principle Voices): Not at all. Warren Jeffs and the Fundamentalist LDS church is only one of many fundamentalist groups. I've never met him, and I don't particularly want to meet him. I know some of the people who have left his community, but I am glad to say I am not associated with his leadership in any way.

Q: Why are you glad about it?

Wilde: I understand that he has exercised a lot of control over his people and has condoned and even married underage women. I believe that a girl ought to be 18, generally speaking, before she gets married, in monogamy or polygamy. And so there are things I've heard have gone on in that community that I am glad I am not a part of. And yet I still respect a lot of people that are members of that group.

I am glad you brought up this issue of young girls being taken into marriages.

I do not condone that or recommend it.

A Second Wife's Tale

I'm glad you ran that down, Nighthawke.  It echoes my position exactly.

I have no problem with folks' unauthorized (from the LDS Church's position) practice of a version of the Principle:

It is the marriages of underaged girls, especially to older men;
It is the marriages to too close kin;
It is the widespread welfare fraud; and
It is the outright thievery of people's homes

that have always been a problem amongst the Short Creek Fundies that stick in my craw and lead me to root for prosecutions both in Arizona and Utah.

Take those items out of the equation, and I'm just fine with 'em.

Those folks forget that:

The Orderville, Brigham City, and other UEPs did not mispropriate the homes of folks who left the Order;
The XIXth Century polygynist Mormons in greater Deseret did not go on the dole to support their peculiar lifestyle;
The close-kin marriages were a tiny minority (about as frequent as other close-kin marriages on the frontier); and
XIXth Century marriages on the frontier tended to come at younger ages for girls . . . but not so in the more settled areas and certainly not so today.

They are not the mirror image, or even a particularly interesting caricature, of my Great- and Great-Great Grandparents' experiences living the Principle.

[John Corrill]

Nighthawke:  My posts have been specific to the FLDS....

John Corrill:  My posts have been in regards to "contempory polygamy" in general, which would include the whole spectrum of Fundamentalist Mormons.  I think there is much to be learned by observing all groups.  


Nighthawke:  Principle Voices is in no way affiliated with Warren Jeffs' group...

John Corrill: I understand that.


Nighthawke:  I'm glad to hear that you talked to some of these women; so, what did they think about your thoughts and feelings with reference to Joseph Smith?

John Corrill:  We didn't talk about Joseph Smith.  I mostly asked questions and listened.  I was interested in learning about them - their culture, their motivation, their beliefs, how they got involved in modern polygamy, etc, etc.

For some reason, I only get "preachy" about Joseph Smith in forums like this   When you and I bump into each other at FAIR someday, I'm guessing we could have a great discussion about the beautiful landscapes in Canada, our latest hobbies or projects, or the politcal state of the world, and not even mention Joseph Smith once!

[John Corrill]

USU78: The XIXth Century polygynist Mormons in greater Deseret did not go on the dole to support their peculiar lifestyle....They are not the mirror image, or even a particularly interesting caricature, of my Great- and Great-Great Grandparents' experiences living the Principle.

John Corrill:  Instead of going on the dole, the women and children were just neglected, never saw their father because he had his wives spread out from Provo to Bear Lake to Star Valley to Brigham City.  The wife never had any money and had to hire out as a maid.  When the wife finally got fed up and left the husband, she and the kids ran a farm so they would have some food to eat.

This is the caricature of mine and many others Grandparents experiences living the Principle.

Edited by John Corrill, 20 September 2006 - 10:32 AM.

[Nighthawke]

Ref, on Sep 20 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Nighthawke said:

I don't believe the Church is embarrassed about polygamy, if they were then why footnote something to a book that has all that information at one's fingertips?

If they weren't, why not show the same respect for polygamous wive's of Prophets as they do for monogamous wives of Prophets and reflrect them as "Significant Events"?  Why not mention them at all on an official website that is supposed to give a history of each Prophet?  Why only mention the monogamous wives?

Why only in a "footnote" to an unofficial publication when it would be so simple to include the sacred and meaningful polygamous marriages of the Church founders as a "Significant Event", in the very websight  they do for monogamous marriages of past prophets?  Why do they so obviously differentiate the "significance" of these two types of marriages in the same websight?  It would be so easy to include, reflect a consistency in content, and show the same respect for these women of supposedly sacred marriages as their monogaous counterparts!  

Why?

If you really want to know why then I suggest you ask the Church instead of a message board.

I've never had a problem getting the information. It is available, much of it has been published by the Church-owned presses (Deseret or BYU). And like I said a lot of it is available on Church-owned websites, you just need to click extra icons to get to it. I am presently writing up short biographies of many plural wives and have been able to find information on all of them so far and I live all the way up in eastern Canada.

[Nighthawke]

John Corrill, on Sep 20 2006, 01:31 PM, said:

John Corrill:  Instead of going on the dole, the women and children were just neglected, never saw their father because he had his wives spread out from Provo to Bear Lake to Star Valley to Brigham City.  The wife never had any money and had to hire out as a maid.  When the wife finally got fed up and left the husband, she and the kids ran a farm so they would have some food to eat.

This is the caricature of mine and many others Grandparents experiences living the Principle.

um, "caricature"?

In what timeline did all of this happen? Sometimes knowing what year something occurred explains a lot. On the other hand not all polygamous marriages were ideal. Monogamist marriages often end up in divorce. Indeed the divorce rate in plural marriages was lower in the nineteenth century that today's monogamous marriage divorce rates.

[katherine the great]

One of the biggest differences between this group and 19th century Mormons is geography.  There is NO where for these people to run.  The government is going to have to take a hard look at marriage and decide if monogamy is truly the one true "American Way."  Then they need to address the problem of underage marriages and the extreme poverty.

[Nighthawke]

katherine the great, on Sep 20 2006, 02:15 PM, said:

One of the biggest differences between this group and 19th century Mormons is geography.  There is NO where for these people to run.  The government is going to have to take a hard look at marriage and decide if monogamy is truly the one true "American Way."  Then they need to address the problem of underage marriages and the extreme poverty.

You're absolutely right... the planet ends at the U.S. border.

The government hasn't prosecuted anyone for polygamy since the Short Creek raid back in the 50s. It isn't about polygamy and hasn't been about polygamy for decades.

[Ref]

Nighthawke said:

If you really want to know why then I suggest you ask the Church instead of a message board.

I have on several occasions over the past year by submitting that very question on their official website in the venue they provide for questions to be asks.  It�?¢â?¬â?¢s been about 15 months and I have yet to receive and email or written response.  I suspect their lack of response is similar to their exclusion of the issue on the History of the Prophets website, they want to avoid and distance themselves from the practice of polygamy in an �?¢â?¬�??Official�?¢â?¬�? capacity.

This is further demonstrated and supported by the only topical discussion at the official lds.org on polygamy where it has a very brief statement on it and  provides mostly  a dis-association from it here:

http://www.mormon.or...1-114-3,00.html


I realize you can find information on polygamy from many unofficial sources, I also realize it is not any members responsibility for what is included on the church website.

Perhaps I should ask the question in a different way, recognizing everyone will have their own take on it:

Is there any reasonable, logical and/or intelligent explanation as to why the church does not make mention to the polygamous wives of prophets, on the same site they mention and recognize monogamous wives of prophets as �?¢â?¬�??Significant Events�?¢â?¬�?, OTHER THAN  that they are either embarrassed and/or seek official avoidance of this past practice?

If there is such an answer, I would love to hear it!

Let me also remind ourselves that in this age of �?¢â?¬�??digital data�?¢â?¬�?, web-space and ease of inclusion is a given.  So why should these women be any less respected on that sight than their monogamous counterparts (in your opinion of course).  Are there any "other"�?¢â?¬�??reasonable explanations?

Also Nighthawke, could you refer to the places at lds.org where you found all this information on polygamy?  Is it within the official church website or links to unofficial sources.  Thanks in advance.

[USU78]

John Corrill, on Sep 20 2006, 10:31 AM, said:

USU78 said:

The XIXth Century polygynist Mormons in greater Deseret did not go on the dole to support their peculiar lifestyle....They are not the mirror image, or even a particularly interesting caricature, of my Great- and Great-Great Grandparents' experiences living the Principle.

Instead of going on the dole, the women and children were just neglected, never saw their father because he had his wives spread out from Provo to Bear Lake to Star Valley to Brigham City.  The wife never had any money and had to hire out as a maid.  When the wife finally got fed up and left the husband, she and the kids ran a farm so they would have some food to eat.

This is the caricature of mine and many others Grandparents experiences living the Principle.

You misconstrue the exception to be the rule.

By no means do I assert that neglect never happened:  folks is folks, after all, East or West.

But neglect rarely happened, unless you want to include the condition of the women forced to band together to form a economically viable unit when the "breadwinner" patriarch is off on mission after mission after mission among the neglected.  I do not.

My paternal-paternal-paternal GG Grandfather was a serial monogamist and went on mission after mission after mission, and his 2nd (and later 3rd) wife was left alone with some grown and partially grown stepchildren as well as young children or her own to help her get by.

There's hardly anything that approaches a straightline correspondence between such women's experiences and the Short Creek folks.

Edited by USU78, 20 September 2006 - 11:55 AM.

[Nighthawke]

Ref, on Sep 20 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

Also Nighthawke, could you refer to the places at lds.org where you found all this information on polygamy?  Is it within the official church website or links to unofficial sources.  Thanks in advance.

The Internet links I use are all Church-owned websites; that includes BYU websites which lds.org links to.

[Ref]

Nighthawke, on Sep 20 2006, 12:01 PM, said:

Ref, on Sep 20 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

Also Nighthawke, could you refer to the places at lds.org where you found all this information on polygamy?  Is it within the official church website or links to unofficial sources.  Thanks in advance.

The Internet links I use are all Church-owned websites; that includes BYU websites which lds.org links to.

Great.

Could you provide me specific references?

Thanks in advance again!

Also, any opinion on why only polygamous wives were excluded from the official "History of the Prophets" website?

[Nighthawke]

Ref, on Sep 20 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

Nighthawke, on Sep 20 2006, 12:01 PM, said:

Ref, on Sep 20 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

Also Nighthawke, could you refer to the places at lds.org where you found all this information on polygamy?�??�?  Is it within the official church website or links to unofficial sources.�??�?  Thanks in advance.

The Internet links I use are all Church-owned websites; that includes BYU websites which lds.org links to.

Great.

Could you provide me specific references?

Thanks in advance again!

Also, any opinion on why only polygamous wives were excluded from the official "History of the Prophets" website?

References to what? It depends what you are looking for.

It isn't just polygamous wives that are excluded, Roberts' book on John Taylor is over 500 pages long and I think I have two or three more books on John Taylor on my bookshelves so you're looking at well over 1,500 pages. Then there are his speeches in the Journal of Discourses, his journals, et cetera. Should the Church be expected to publish everything John Taylor ever wrote or did? Roberts used the journals of John Taylor when he put his 500-page book together. Should the Church publish 500-plus page books on each president? Why when someone else has already written several 500-page books on John Taylor, one of which includes pictures of his plural wives, lists all his children and has biographies of his wives? (Too lazy to go down to the basement and look up the info in the other books so the info might be in them too.)

What's wrong with the Church just referencing Roberts' book and if people are interested in John Taylor and his family they can look it up for themselves?

[katherine the great]

Nighthawke, on Sep 20 2006, 12:26 PM, said:

You're absolutely right... the planet ends at the U.S. border.

The government hasn't prosecuted anyone for polygamy since the Short Creek raid back in the 50s. It isn't about polygamy and hasn't been about polygamy for decades.

For Americans it does.  I suppose they could all immigrate to Mexico.
I don't understand your second comment.  If a thread on the ethics of polygamy isn't about polygamy, what is it about?

[Nighthawke]

katherine the great, on Sep 20 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

Nighthawke, on Sep 20 2006, 12:26 PM, said:

The government hasn't prosecuted anyone for polygamy since the Short Creek raid back in the 50s. It isn't about polygamy and hasn't been about polygamy for decades.

I don't understand your second comment.  If a thread on the ethics of polygamy isn't about polygamy, what is it about?

You're the one who referenced the government when you typed, "The government is going to have to take a hard look at marriage and decide if monogamy is truly the one true "American Way.""

I was just letting you know that the government hasn't prosecuted anyone for polygamy since the Short Creek raid in the 1950s.

Attorney General Shurtleff says that the Utah government is not interested in prosecuting anybody for polygamy and neither is Arizona. So it seems to me that the governments have taken a hard look at polygamous marriage and decided that they aren't going to prosecute anyone who is a polygamist with polygamy/cohabitation/bigamy if it was consensual between adults.

Warren Jeffs for example is not charged with being a polygamist.

Edited by Nighthawke, 20 September 2006 - 12:53 PM.

[John Corrill]

USU78: You misconstrue the exception to be the rule...neglect rarely happened...

John Corrill:  Hardly.  Where do you come up with this stuff, USU78?.  One does not have to look that deeply into polygamy - in any era - to find neglected wives and needy children.  If we need to go into all the documentation on this, my evening is free and I will be happy to post references all night long about the neglect of wives and children in polygamy - and that would just get us through Joseph Smith's neglect of his own wives.