Polygamy And Belief

[randomaccess]

I am a Mormon. And as with all major religions, that phrase implies a deep river of history, traditions, attitudes, mores, icons, social structures and beliefs. That water flows through me in the same rushing, enveloping manner that it flows through the lives of most Mormons. It is the religion of my youth. I began to learn on my mother's lap and at my father's knee about the restoration of the only true and living church of Jesus Christ. When Joseph Smith founded the Church of Christ on April 6th 1830, it was at a meeting with 6 people in Peter Whitmer's log house in upstate New York. I wonder if even he would be surprised at its proliferation to ten million plus today.

A few years ago I decided that I'd like to put to rest certain intellectual and moral objections that hinder my faith. Polygamy was the king-pin, so I decided to start there. Polygamy has bothered me ever since I was old enough to understand the implications of the practice. I think that this is the case with most church members. I typically have gone along with what I've been told after questioning why the church practiced polygamy; that it was something that the Lord required of the early saints, but that we don't have to do it now, and that a belief in the church doesn't have to be affected by that practice. If the Book of Mormon is truly the word of God given to man through the prophet Joseph Smith, then the things that he taught came from God, even if we don't understand them. If you read the Book of Mormon, and pray about it, and feel that the Holy Ghost has witnessed to you that it is true, you don't have to worry about things like polygamy. That sounded like a fair inductive way around the issue, and it satisfied me until recent years.

If I ponder the matter seriously, it offends my sense of morality. It does not sit right with me. Why? Because I have a difficult time believing that the just and loving God that I believe in would condone, much less command, that people live a lifestyle that places one group over another group. In this case, subjugating women to men. I believe that any time a group seeks to dominate another group by placing that group at a disadvantage in options, choices, rights, freedoms, or opportunities; be it men over women, whites over blacks, the rich over the working class, or man over the environment, it is wrong. I believe that a Christian ethical code would agree with this definition of moral versus immoral treatment of those around us. Moral individuals do not willfully dominate others and subject them to their will; be it through persuasion, intimidation, force, or coercion, it is wrong. The question of chastity isn't a part of my objection. While the seeming lack of traditional chastity associated with polygamy is bothersome when compared to marital monogamy and the associated implications of commitment and fidelity for both husband and wife, it seems more morally subjective and the objection is less easily verbalized than the issue of domination.

Is polygamy a form of domination of men over women? I suggest that it is. During the 60 year period of history when polygamy was practiced 1843 -1904 (while only officially sanctioned from 1853 - 1890) by the church, women were not allowed (in a recognized general sense) to take multiple husbands. That withholds a freedom from one group that is readily offered to another group. By definition that is unequal. Who had the right to seek multiple mates? Men. Who stated that men had that right and that women didn't? Other men (who claimed authority to speak on behalf of God). I would imagine that when Abraham Lincolnâ??s republican party platform of 1956 declared polygamy and slavery as the â??twin relics of barbarismâ? that they had this issue of domination in mind.

That is the crux of my problem with polygamy. I do not believe that a moral and loving and just God would take marriage, one of the most important and defining choices a person makes in their life, and turn that into a situation of inequality between men and women, and then command that it be practiced under the threat of condemnation (D&C 132).

Certainly I can see man instituting such a practice. Polygamy has been a practice for thousands of years, and still is in some parts of the world. Women have been the subject of discrimination and unequal distribution of rights for the greater part of recorded history. It is only within the last 100 years that they have commenced the climb that beings to put them on equal ground with men for access to education, politics, employment, etc. If I imagine what polygamy would be like if I were to practice it, from a selfish and male perspective, it would actually be pretty nice. If you said that I could put each of my old girlfriends (the closest I've come to a marriage relationship) in different cities across the country, and I could spend some time with each of them each month in a house that I had provided for them, and have children with them if I chose because the God had commanded it (which is the only scriptural explanation for polygamy Jacob 2:30), and it was a moral situation because God had deemed it such, I might be all for it. There are unique personality traits in the girls I've dated that made me care for them. I think it'd be great to be able to spend time with each of them, and have them eager to have their husband around because they hadn't seen me in a while, and because they knew that they were competing with other women for my attention. I can see a man arriving at the conclusion that polygamy is not a bad idea.

That scenario stands in stark contrast to my view of what marriage should be. A man and a woman cast as equal partners working together, living together, having and raising children together, and being totally and completely devoted to one another and none else. That is the ideal of marriage that most of the civilized world holds to. I believe that it is the mode of marriage endorsed by God. It is the mode of marriage endorsed by the church today.

As I've discussed this issue with different people over the years, certain explanations for the practice of polygamy recur. Nearly all of them are arguments from expediency. They all state that because of situational requirements, God commanded that polygamy be practiced. Those are not good explanations for two reasons. One, most of them are not true. John A Widtsoe wrote an essay published in his book Evidences and Reconciliations that explains that there were actually more men than women in the Church during the period of polygamy and that the pioneer women, widowed or otherwise, weren't short on men to take care of them. It is also argued that the bulk majority of the men in the church at the time may have been ruffians or inadequate father figures, so the children of the church were better served by having the most faithful members as fathers. This is likely untrue because most of the men, if they were willing to make the sacrifice to join the Church and come to Utah, were humble faithful men. This stands to reason. Two, my issue with polygamy isn't a question of expediency, it's a question of morality, and therefore requires a moral explanation. I have yet to come across an apologetic piece based on a moral explanation. Heavenly Father is a God of morality. When he gives a command it is with the intent of building the morality of His people. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness, honor thy father and thy mother. These are all laws with understandable moral foundations. If you do them, you and those around you are benefited and uplifted. Polygamy doesn't seem to have this same quality.

Explanations for polygamy that aren't arguments from expediency are attempts at downplaying or minimizing the practice of polygamy in the early days of the church. For instance, it is put forth that polygamy was practiced for a short period. This explanation is poor considering that it was practiced for 60 years, 1/3 of the total time the church has been in existence. The assertion that "there were a lot of pioneer women who needed to be taken care of whose husbands had died, and the resultant polygamist marriages weren't traditional marriages per se" That explanation, while making polygamy seem like a more benevolent and less hedonistic practice, undermines scriptural support for the practice the only scriptural explanation for polygamy being acceptable is to "raise up seed" (Jacob 2:30). Another common downplaying misnomer is that it was practiced by only 2-3% of the population. That is not true. Widtsoe's essay cites census statistics taken by the federal government while Utah was petitioning for statehood that estimates of the total membership of 172,000 there were 2,400 adult males practicing polygamy. If you break that down, it's 1.4% of the total membership. Letâ??s assume that men of marrying age represented a conservative 1/5th of all church membership. That would mean that there were 35,000 men of marrying age, and that 7% of them were polygamists. That implies that at least 14% of women were polygamists as well. That puts the minimum statistic at 21% of the total adult population, and assuming that children were evenly distributed across polygamist and non polygamist households, a minimum of 21% of the church lived in polygamy in 1890 when the census count was performed. Another explanation is that we are no longer a part of it. That is true. In fact we shun it. But it remains a part of our heritage.

Not only is it a part of our heritage, it is still a part of canonized scripture. Section 132 of the doctrine and covenants has been canonized since 1872. From 1835 to 1872 section 104 of the Doctrine and Covenants, in response to people accusing the church of practicing polygamy, affirmed that a man should have one wife and a woman one husband.

Could God have put it forth as a commandment to test His people, in much the same way that Abraham was tested when he was commanded to kill Isaac? The early saints had a hard enough time gaining acceptance before polygamy became a public practice. If God wanted his church to grow, He wouldnâ??t command them to do something that seems sexually immoral to every average citizen of the country in which His seedling church is attempting to take root. As any analogy, the Abraham Isaac comparison has limitations. Abraham was an individual, not a collective people, the situation was for a day, not for 60 years, and the seemingly morally contradictory act was never actually carried out in Abraham's case, while in polygamy it was. Am I second guessing God in asserting this? Perhaps. But when we hear any commandment that is said to come from God, we second guess it. We use our minds and hearts to "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21).

"...As pertaining to the law of the priesthood - if a man espouse a virgin and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent... then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else..." D&C 132:61. " ... if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her..." D&C 132: 63. Pardon my heresy, but the multiple instances of hypocrisy in those verses are almost ridiculous to me. What about the women involved in a polygamous relationship? From these verses it seems that they should be condemned by the same "law" that is put forth to justify the behavior of their husband. What about the first wife having the option of giving her consent? Consent given under the threat of condemnation is not consent. It is coercion.

Would I practice polygamy if commanded to do it today? I would not. Would the church still practice polygamy if it were legal? I don't know. In 1890 they ceased the official practice of performing plural marriages, but did not denounce the doctrine. Otherwise there wouldn't be the canonized scripture outlining the practice, and people wouldn't be able to be sealed for a second or third time in the temple when remarried after the death of a spouse. So my belief in the church implies my belief in post-mortem polygamy. I'm not comfortable with that either.

I am looking for a moral explanation as to how polygamy could possibly be a moral, just, virtuous, good practice given by a God who holds those attributes. It seems to subjugate women to men. It seems to undo hundreds of years of social progress. I don't want the standard inductive "A is true, therefore B is true" explanation. I don't want another list of minimizing excuses or arguments from expediency. I want to truly understand and feel alright about it on a moral level. If there is no good explanation, I am left to conclude that it is something that was instituted by man rather than by God, and that doesnâ??t bode well for my faith in my church and its founders.

[Abulafia]

Taking God out of it, I think there are times when polygamy would be necessary within any given culture, and might even work reasonably well in terms of division of labour, particularly if women were expected or required to contribute to an agricultural society for instance. I'm sure that at certain times there would be good reasons for it for the survival of a particular species.

All things being equal though, I don't think it works, simply because there are usually an even number of women and men in any culture (unless war kills all the men off). I certainly don't see that it was necessary in 19th Century America.

Makes the LDS a very interesting group though!!

[Bernard Gui]

Could you restate your issue in one paragraph?

It would be much easier to respond to it.

Bernard

[gramps]

No need to re-state your issues here for me.

I personally find that polygyny could be a workable solution between consenting adults. And polygamy also, for that matter.

I find, however, that it is usually a problem, as you have stated above, when it is part of a religious structure where the man has more power than the woman, through the priesthood, or in some other way. In these situations, you most likely only find polygyny practised and allowed. That is when the power structure gets uneven and the abuses start to happen.

Then, in the unequal power situation, it seems quite immoral to me.

Just my .02.

[Abulafia]

I am looking for a moral explanation as to how polygamy could possibly be a moral, just, virtuous, good practice given by a God who holds those attributes

I thought this was the crux of it Bernard.

[thesometimesaint]

randomaccess:

Lets cut to the chase a little further.

Was polygamist Abraham moral?

How about polygamist Moses?

If we are going to condemn Joseph Smith because of polygamy. What of these two great Prophets

[Nimrod_clone]

That is the crux of my problem with polygamy. I do not believe that a moral and loving and just God would take marriage, one of the most important and defining choices a person makes in their life, and turn that into a situation of inequality between men and women, and then command that it be practiced under the threat of condemnation (D&C 132).

If this is the crux of the topic then the moral dilemma is not whether polygamy is wrong or right, the moral dilemma is whether one believes that God has sanctioned the practice.

Having just finished reading The God Delusion by R. Dawkins I realized he missed the point as well in many of his arguments. The moral dilemma is not the action imposed by God but whether it is God that has truly sanctioned it. As with the case he makes about the slaughter of the Midianites. For the Israelites morality is not defined by the slaughter of the all the males but whether Israel followed the command of God. If that makes any sense..??!! (I only use this as an example I do no not wish to derail the thread)

Basically if one truly believes that God has commanded polygamous relationships then there is no moral dilemma with the practice of polygamy, the morality of the issue is whether we choose to follow God. Randomaccess alluded to this and it is not too far wrong. The real question is: Is God real and how do we know if God has actually commanded this practice?

Having said this I too have never felt comfortable with the practice of polygamy. No man in his right mind would want more than one wifeâ?¦!! But this lack comfortableness could easily be contributed to a cultural learning. I doubt I would have the same problem if I grew up in a culture where this is still practiced.

Nimrod

[Abulafia]

Sometimes Saint, I really don't think that argument works.

Was polygamist Abraham moral?

How about polygamist Moses?

If we are going to condemn Joseph Smith because of polygamy. What of these two great Prophets

Taking that the OT stories are true, (and there's no real way to verify them) we are talking about a COMPLETELY different culture. What circumstances were present in the then culture that made polygamy beneficial? Was there a high infant mortality rate? Was there a dearth of men because of the way war was conducted? Was the religious culture patriarchal or authoritarian in nature and did this effect how women were regarded? How were widows and orphans provided for? Were the communities nomadic or settled? Would they have benefitted economically from polygamy?

All these questions (and many more I am sure) when answered can put the ancient culture in perspective.

19th Century America is a totally different time and culture.

Just my opinion..

Abulafia

[myleague]

While Abraham and Jacob (Israel) are the two big examples of polygamy, we know that David and Solomon weren't right in their undertaking of polygamy. We're using our current cultural views to judge something that God has sanctioned since the world was as right or wrong. I think that it would still be part of the church if the laws of the land weren't so hostile and unchanging towards polygamy. As many state and believe that many LDS practice polygamy in the next life. I grew up with my Grandfather being a polygamist in the next life. My Grandmother died when my Mother was a year old and my Grandfather got remarried in the temple. Polygamy isn't a big deal for me, but for my wife it's a huge deal. It could be how she was raised, it could be a woman thing, and Iâ??m not quite sure at this point.

I believe those who are chosen to live in polygamy will be a select few, like Abraham and Jacob and a few Latter-Day saints. It won't be given to everyone. In some interesting reading about the Canaanites and their belief of Ha-Elohiem having two wives. Roughly stating that our God the Father has two wives according to ancient texts. Two wives seems much more responsible than 100's like David or Solomon, who the BoM were doing abominations in front of the Lord. All speculation to some degree. I just find it wrong to judge God and his government or nature. Polygamy is part of God's nature; else it wouldn't have been commissioned for Abraham or Jacob.

To say that polygamy was part of an ancient culture and practice not applicable to us today is to say the same thing about the 10 commandments, thereby nullifying the word of God. Is that really what you think?

[Abulafia]

Why does God have to have 'sanctioned' it. If humans are free agents, left on this earth to work things out for themselves, then it stands to reason that different lifestyles would be adopted and experimented with, with the ultimate aim of continuing the species. I'm quite happy for humans to figure out that at some points, in a female dominated society (for whatever reason and I mean in terms of numbers), polygamy will probably be the best option. I'm also happy for humans in a time of high infant mortality to ensure that they had (men) access to fertile females for as long as possible.

Why oh why does God 'have' to have anything to do with it? Under certain circumstances, it would just be common sense???

Now, I know that culture and religion can interfere with common sense...but ...there you go...

Abulafia

[oats]

Have you read very many of the journals of pioneer women?

You can reason about polygamy and its effects all you want, but being a man and having never lived in a polygamous household it might be hard to grasp the entire concept.

There are plenty of journals from faithful latter day saint women who were actually in the situation. I suggest they offer a better perspective than just a mental construction of what reality might be like.

I haven't read many myself, but I have read some and I do know they exist.

[Abulafia]

To say that polygamy was part of an ancient culture and practice not applicable to us today is to say the same thing about the 10 commandments, thereby nullifying the word of God. Is that really what you think?

No. I don't agree. The 10 commandments are pretty much common sense. Respect your parents, Don't murder, Don't steal, Don't commit adultery (preserve the family unit). Don't spend your life wishing to have something that someone else has got, Don't lie, (now that's an interesting one)....

All those make for a pretty good community, and form the basis of many laws that we have today. We keep them, because, culturally, they work.

Polygamy, except under very exceptional circumstances, doesn't. That's why most cultures give it up when they get beyond the 'agricultural subsistence' level.... (unless they have a religious basis for keeping it going as do the Muslim community)

Just my opinion of course.

[myleague]

Polygamy doesn't make sense to us because we don't understand how it plays into God's plan. We are told to keep the Sabbath day holy... Is Sunday the Sabbath or is Saturday? Monday thru Friday, can they not all be the Sabbath in their own regard? Working 6 days and making one holy was the commandment, does it really matter which one we make holy? I don't know. I think that peoples limited understanding of what and why polygamy is necessary has long since been removed. We are stuck with our own understanding which will always fail. Debate it, define it as you may, you no more understand the intent of God's institution then all those of us who don't live it. Only those who have lived it truly understand polygamy. Reasoning it unnatural or not needed doesn't change the fact that God considers it part of his plan. Just because parts of his plan was changed or deleted from human knowledge doesn't change God's stance on polygamy. I have found it difficult to be faithful to one wife; do I deserve more knowledge and understanding of having two wives if I can't even be faithful to one? No.

I don't pretend to know to what intent polygamy plays in God's plan or dismiss it. As I have promised to obey the laws of the land I don't have to worry about polygamy in my life.

God's culture or system of government only exist to those who follow him, will non-believers understand that culture? Probably not. God's chosen people have always been different, peculiar to those around them who don't believe. Do we expect that to be any different today?

[Nighthawke]

Have you read very many of the journals of pioneer women?

You can reason about polygamy and its effects all you want, but being a man and having never lived in a polygamous household it might be hard to grasp the entire concept.

There are plenty of journals from faithful latter day saint women who were actually in the situation. I suggest they offer a better perspective than just a mental construction of what reality might be like.

I haven't read many myself, but I have read some and I do know they exist.

I spent a couple of weeks reading the Woman's Exponent this past fall and it is full of articles defending the principle. Read the following for example by Lula Greene Richards, first editor of the Exponent. I bolded what I think answers the question of morality:

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, ETC.

_____

DEAR MRS. SCOTT:

Allow me to offer you a helping hand. I am much interested in your wading about in the mud.

I may as well say to begin with, that when a child, my first attempt to read the Book of Mormon through met with a similar result to that which you have lately experienced. When I came to the second chapter of Jacob, I became somewhat confused. I thought I did not understand it, or if I did, it told me that the Lord condemned â??Polygamy,â? and that it was an abomination in his sight.

I did not go humbly before the Lord then, and ask for an explanation of the matter. But with the book open in my hand, I went to my father and asked him if â??Polygamyâ? was right, and if the Lord did reveal the principles to Joseph Smith, with the commandment that he and some of his brethren should enter into it? To these questions my father replied calmly and solemnly in the affirmative.

â??Then,â? I demanded, â??What does this mean?â? And I read aloud those passages which seemed to me to make the Lord appear anything but an â??unchangeable being,â? â??the same yesterday, to-day and forever.â? If He had actually said those things to Jacob for the Nephites, and the exact opposite to Joseph for the Latter-day Saints. My father heard me through, and then took the book and read, and endeavoured to make clear to my understanding, the fact that no inconsistencies existed between the teachings in that chapter, and the teachings of our Latter-day prophets. He admitted that some men among our people were foolish, and would do wrong, and that they would be held accountable for their wrong doing. The Lord would not justify sin and wickedness among his people now, any more than in former days. His daughters and their purity were as precious in his sight to-day as in any age of the world that had ever been. And a great deal more was said, but I could not comprehend it. I was sure that my father knew what he told me was the truth; but he could not know it for me. Every other principle of our religion which I had heard or thought anything about, seemed so plain and also so good and beautiful, that I wondered why I could not see the good and beauty of â??Polygamy,â? if really there were any in it.

My parents were Latter-day Saints, not only in name but in deed and in truth, years before my birth. So thatâ??something like yourself, Mrs. Scott, â??I was conceived in faith, brought forth in repentance and raised in baptism.â? But differing from you somewhat, I did not â??believe because my parents and relatives did;â? but had to understand things for myself in order to believe them. I was baptized when six years of age because I wanted to be. My father thought best for me to wait two years, until I should be eight years old. But our Bishop said I had as good an understanding of things as many children at the age of eight years; he advised my father to baptize me, and it was done.

When I was fifteen years old, I began to realize the inconsistency of my being a staunch advocate of â??Mormonismâ? in the main, while one of its vital principles, I could not say that I understood or believed. One thing I acknowledged to myself, I had not striven diligently to find out for a certainty whether or not â??Polygamyâ? was right. Instead of studying into it, I had simply looked at it, concluded it was a doubtful problem, and inheroically let it alone. I wanted to know about it for myself now, and began to pray earnestly for greater faith and light. (This, I think, you might do with profit, my dear Mrs. Scott.) The Lord was merciful unto me, He heard my prayers, and the light came. Not suddenly, as it comes to some; but gradually and unmistakably. Not without many efforts on my part to grasp a ray when it was presented to me, to hold and nourish a gleam of truth when I got it. I learned to understand the principles of â??Polygamy,â? very much as we learn to understand principles in mathematics or chemistry; and it seems as clear to me now as that two and two make four, or that alkali and acid compounded in liquid form will effervesce.

In the second chapter of Jacob, before alluded to, the word of the Lord to the people of Nephi was, â??There shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.â? They were but a small people, their men and women being about equal in number. It was not the design of the Lord that their seed should multiply very rapidly, but that He might raise up unto himself a righteous branch, from the â??fruit of the loins of Joseph.â? In the same chapter it is written, â??For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.â?

In these latter-days, the Lord wills to raise up seed unto himself, and He has commanded his people, through the medium of his Prophet Joseph Smith, and they have hearkened, some of them, and obeyed the voice of the Lord by entering into plural marriage, or as it is styled, Polygamy.â? â??Whoredoms,â? and all licentiousness are as abominable in the sight of the Lord today as they ever were, and such things have nothing to do with the â??Polygamyâ? of the Latter-day Saints. To the faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whether [practical] â??polygamistsâ? or not, nothing is held so choice and sacred as personal virtue and chastity: and nothing is so dreadful as the loss of it.

We consider that a man who marries two or more wives, and remains faithful to them, is as pure and good as the man who marries but one and is true to her. And in like manner do we view the women who are faithful to their husbands, whether they live in â??Polygamyâ? or out of it.

If you are still in doubt about the same Lord giving one commandment to the Nephites, and another to the Latter-day Saints, let me call your attention to a single illustration of a similar occurrence, recorded in the old Testament.

You know all about the storing of a very great amount of grain in Egypt, because of the sore famine that was coming upon the land and how the blessings of the Lord rested upon the [work]. You will also please call to mind, how but a few generations later, when the Lord fed his people with manna in the wilderness, the word was that none of the manna should be stored away, (to make their loads heavier as they travelled,) except a little for the Sabbath. And when this commandment was broken, the result was evil instead of good for the people. Many other examples might be cited, but let this suffice to show that what suits one people and their condition may not be applicable to others in their time.

One thing more. You say the â??vexing of the wickedâ? is what makes you bitter and unhappy, for religiously the wicked includes all who differ from the Church.â? We do not view it in that light at all. We believe that people who are honest and virtuous, and who seek to benefit others, will never be classed among the wicked and the ungodly, though they make no professions of religion. They receive better rewards than thousands of professed religionists who parade their piety, but whose inner lives are vile and corrupt.

â??The wickedâ? are those who would stir up strife and contention, who are dishonest, immoral, and who seek to abuse and discomfort others. Is it not just, that such should be punished? We would not allow one of our young children to heap impositions on another without interfering, and putting the bad one to shame, if after being told repeatedly how he ought to act, he still persisted in being bad. Neither will our great Father suffer some of his children to wrong others, and not bring them to judgment for it.

â??Why not prevent the wickedness?â? you ask. Why not indeed! Which of us would not, if we had the power.

Your ideas of happiness and religion remind me of an expression made by a stranger lady who attended a little birthday gathering, given to one of our noble sisters a short time since. She said of us, â??You are indeed, a happy people, whether you are right or not.â? Our answer was, â??Our happiness is an evidence that we are right. Did we not know that we are right before our God, we could not be thus happy.â?

True religious sentiments and lives will make people happy and satisfied under very trying circumstances. But a religion which requires no self-denials, which offers no occasions for the uprooting of native selfishness and the cultivation of more generous fruits, would be too cheap and too unlike the religion of Jesus to be valued very highly.

What a long letter, and I would say more but that I fear, Mrs. Scott, you (or our mutual friend the editor) will lose patience with me, and I would not like to vex you. So goodbye.

- L. Greene Richards. Womanâ??s Exponent. (Salt Lake City: 15 November 1882).

Lula Greene Richards

Born in Kanesville, Iowa, during a cholera outbreak, Louisa Lula Greene Richards survived two nearly fatal accidents as a child and grew up to become the first woman journalist in Utah. Her family arrived in Salt Lake City in 1852, after Brigham Young ordered the evacuation of Kanesville and all Pottawattamie County, and they eventually settled in Cache County. At age eighteen, she and her sister Lissa opened a small school, but Louisa was frustrated by her impatience with the students and by her lack of formal education. It was her desire for learning that in 1869 took her back to school in Salt Lake City, and there her talent as a writer began to develop. Early poems she submitted to the Salt Lake Herald and the Deseret News under the name â??Lulaâ? were well-received. A great-niece of Brigham Young, she formed a close relationship with Eliza R. Snow and helped her bring about her second volume of poems by selling advance subscriptions to raise the funds needed for publication. Her personal initiative and skill with the pen caught the attention of Edward Sloan, editor of the Salt Lake Herald, and in 1872 he selected her to be the editor of a new newspaper, the Womanâ??s Exponent. Unsure of her qualifications for such a position, she accepted only on the conditions that Snow approved and that Brigham Young made it an official Church calling. For the next five years her editorials argued for the right of women to vote, to obtain an equal educational, and to choose their occupation. She also advocated the right of Mormon women to practice their religion freely. She retired from her position after the birth of her second daughter, but she continued to write as her family grew. Her poems appeared in the Womanâ??s Exponent, Improvement Era, Young Womanâ??s Journal, Childrenâ??s Friend, Relief Society Magazine, and Juvenile Instructor. Her book of poetry, Branches That Run Over the Wall, was published in 1904.

[Abulafia]

Nighthawke, I'd agree with that.

That you can take any cultural practice and you can either act morally within it, or immorally.

How 'moral' was Joseph's behaviour when it came to polygamy? That's the question I have the greatest difficulty answering.

Any family practice, can be and is abused according to the moral framework of the particular culture, including monogamy.

Given that polygamy was divinely sanctioned, did Joseph act morally within it?

Abulafia

[thesometimesaint]

Abulafia:

While JS was far from perfect, as he himself would readily attest too. I've read nothing that confirms that he was anything less than a loving committed husband.

[Zakuska]

randomaccess:

Lets cut to the chase a little further.

Was polygamist Abraham moral?

How about polygamist Moses?

If we are going to condemn Joseph Smith because of polygamy. What of these two great Prophets

You forgot about the father of the dirty dozen. Jacob/Israel himself.

Worked 14 years in servitude for 4 wives.

Not to mention God sending an Angel to command Hagar right back into a Polygomous relationship.

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

I didn't forget. But my brain is rather slow at two in the morning.

[utamnis]

The subjugation of women to men is by no means limited to polygamy. If that is the result of any relationship it is wrong. Here are a few lines from GBH in Oct 2004 Conf. One of my favorites of all times. While this is not about polygamy directly, it deals with the "grand summation" of the creation of the earth - women.

When these issues are dealt with, I mean completely dealt with, I think many of the 'issues' with polygamy will be resolved. Subjugation, greed, lust and "possession" have no place in any relationship between men and women. Much of the "morality" associated with polygynous relationships is tied to these feelings on both the part of men and women. When it comes down to it, it is less about a mutual social arrangement and more about sex.

"And so Eve became God's final creation, the grand summation of all of the marvelous work that had gone before.

Notwithstanding this preeminence given the creation of woman, she has so frequently through the ages been relegated to a secondary position. She has been put down. She has been denigrated. She has been enslaved. She has been abused. And yet some few of the greatest characters of scripture have been women of integrity, accomplishment, and faith."

"Man and woman are His creations. Their duality is His design. Their complementary relationships and functions are fundamental to His purposes. One is incomplete without the other."

"There are some men who, in a spirit of arrogance, think they are superior to women. They do not seem to realize that they would not exist but for the mother who gave them birth. When they assert their superiority they demean her. It has been said, "Man can not degrade woman without himself falling into degradation; he can not elevate her without at the same time elevating himself" (Alexander Walker, in Elbert Hubbard's Scrap Book [1923], 204)."

"Every woman is a daughter of God. You cannot offend her without offending Him. I plead with the men of this Church to look for and nurture the divinity that lies within their companions. To the degree that happens, there will be harmony, peace, enrichment of family life, nurturing love.

The women in our lives are creatures endowed with particular qualities, divine qualities, which cause them to reach out in kindness and with love to those about them. We can encourage that outreach if we will give them opportunity to give expression to the talents and impulses that lie within them. In our old age my beloved companion said to me quietly one evening, "You have always given me wings to fly, and I have loved you for it."

[Zakuska]

I agree completely.

Funny story:

This week in the Gospel Principles class, they where teaching about Priesthood and Authority. The theacered asked the class to think of an authority figure in your life that you looked up to. The ward Jokester piped up and said: "My Wife" I think he probably got a talking to when he got home.

My wife and I's song is the Robin Hood theme... "Everything I do I do it for you".

The Ideal relationship is Husband and Wife. But that does not mean that Polygamy does not have its uses and necessities in an imperfect world, where death rends families.

[Nemesis]

When it comes down to it, it is less about a mutual social arrangement and more about sex.

Such unfounded assertions are not welcome in plural marriage threads.

Keep it civil or the thread will be closed.

[urroner]

What does God think of brethren and how they love their wives:

1 Peter 3:8:

...love as brethren, be pitiful......

That basically says it all.

[Zakuska]

What does God think of brethren and how they love their wives:

1 Peter 3:8:

...love as brethren, be pitiful......

That basically says it all.

I think its time for your mark twain quote.

[urroner]

I think its time for your mark twain quote.

Which quote is that? Remind me.

[flavo]

I Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Can your reconcile this thinking? Isn't this oppression? I think you totally misunderstand the principle of polygamy. This is why not all were able to practice it. It can be an ugly thing but if practiced as God would have it can be a beautiful and righteous principle to follow.