239 replies to this topic

[Doctor Steuss]

truthseeker2, on Apr 24 2007, 09:19 AM, said:

There are also many journal entries of the abuse, the neglect and lack of closeness with these polygamous relationships as well.  [â?¦]

Which is a sad reality.  Hence the second part of my post where I readily admit that I would likely be the type of brutish person that would cause such.  I unfortunately know my demons, and that there are a few that dwell within me that Satan himself fears.

Hopefully, as you said: â??man's ability to cope with such a relationship maybe made perfect in the eternities.â?  Given that G-d seems to love all of His children (with the exception of Esau), Iâ??m sure the capacity for mankind to love will be increased substantially in the hereafter (at least I hope so anyway).

[kawikadave]

Quote

There are also many journal entries of the abuse, the neglect and lack of closeness with these polygamous relationships as well.

No one is saying that polygamy was properly practiced by everyone. There certainly were abuses and neglect. However, one could say the same thing about marriage in general. Some husbands are loving, respectful, and caring. Others are abusive, cold, and harsh.

This is not news.

[RedSox]

My Title is confussing.  I actually wanted reflections on 19th C. polygamy, and not on the fundies.  My research is what prompted me to ask the question, that is the only reason I decided to mention it.

[Tchild2]

I have never thought that there was anything "shameful" about polygamy and its practice.  It might seem quite odd from our modern day perspective and social progression (women, minorities, etc), but polygamy in and of itself is merely a social familial arrangement.  If all the participants are consenting adults, then it does not seem any different than any other agreed to living arrangement.

Personally, I see Polygamy and its practice as a sort of "proof" (my subjective proof anyway) that Mormonism is not constant and it changes according to what is acceptable and what is not in society.  It is change that just affirms that there is no "everlasting and unchanging" God at the helm.

[Tarski]

My take is a bit nuanced:

1. Polygamy is not a healthy way of living.

2. I feel that polygamy was likely introduced by JS for far less than nobel reasons (it helped rationalize and "spiritualize" his prior extramarital indugences--Fanny Alger etc.)

3. Later polygamists were only guilty of being fooled or carring on a tradition that they were born into. In most cases they did their level best to make polygamy a wholesome and nobel thing.

[RedSox]

Tarski, on Apr 24 2007, 09:44 AM, said:

My take is a bit nuanced:

1. Polygamy is not a healthy way of living.

2. I feel that polygamy was likely introduced by JS for far less than nobel reasons (it helped rationalize and "spiritualize" his prior extramarital indugences--Fanny Alger etc.)

3. Later polygamists were only guilty of being fooled or carring on a tradition that they were born into. In most cases they did their level best to make polygamy a wholesome and nobel thing.

I think the word you are looking for is "noble" rather than "nobel" (NO-Bell)

[kawikadave]

Tchild2, on Apr 24 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

Personally, I see Polygamy and its practice as a sort of "proof" (my subjective proof anyway) that Mormonism is not constant and it changes according to what is acceptable and what is not in society.

I have to disagree TChild.

Are you trying to say that polygamy was "acceptable" in American culture in 1842 (and was adopted) but wasn't in 1890 (and was dropped)?

Edited by kawikadave, 24 April 2007 - 09:48 AM.

[Scott Lloyd]

RedSox, on Apr 23 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Right now I'm doing research on Mormon fundamentalism.  It has been eye-opening to read quotes from Heber J. Grant about the evils of polygamy ("new" polygamy), while he himself was a polygamist.  Although I've not read the records from the Smoot hearings, I think that JFS probably struggled to both live and decry polygamy.

Today, many of us are the descendant's of Mormon polygamists.  Regardless of that fact, when you think of pre-1904 polygamy, are you disgusted? enthralled? intrigued? ashamed?

For me, I'm somewhat fascinated by the whole idea.  It's hard to imagine men and women willingly entering polygamy.  In a way, I'm proud of the great amounts of faith that my forebearers had in the principle, but I'm also somewhat horrified by some of the hardships a polygamist life exacted upon plural wives (and sometimes husbands...especially when they were on the lam).
What are your reaction to the practice?

I feel gratitude and admiration for their willingness to obey God under what must have been extremely difficult and trying circumstances.

With the benefit of hindsight, I see plurality of wives, as practiced by our 19th century forebears, as the Lord's means of establishing righteous lineages through which thousands -- and, ultimately, millions -- of our Father's children could be born under the covenant and thereby have a gospel heritage transmitted to them from birth.

Plural marriage in the Church did not -- and could not -- last into perpetuity. But it lasted just as long as it could and needed to for the accomplishment of the Lord's purpose. Early on, despite persecution and prejudice, the Church had a substantial enough membership base to begin to take the restored gospel to all the world. This is largely due to the practice of plural marriage in the mid- to late 1800s.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 24 April 2007 - 09:56 AM.

[kawikadave]

Tarski, on Apr 24 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

1. Polygamy is not a healthy way of living.

How do you define "healthy"?

What is your evidence that polygamy was not/is not "healthy"? Anecdotal evidence won't cut it here (a la "Look at Warren Jeffs! Is that healthy?").

Has some polygamy study been done that I missed?

[Tarski]

kawikadave, on Apr 24 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

How do you define "healthy"?

What is your evidence that polygamy was not/is not "healthy"? Anecdotal evidence won't cut it here (a la "Look at Warren Jeffs! Is that healthy?").

Has some polygamy study been done that I missed?

I don't purport to have a final proof that it is unhealthy. Its an opinion.
Of course, I also don't have final proof that celebacy is unhealthy or even that wife swapping is unhealthy.

But,... I can't help but notice that the numbers don't work out. Don't give me that old "women are more righteous" junk please.

[kawikadave]

Tarski, on Apr 24 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

But,... I can't help but notice that the numbers don't work out. Don't give me that old "women are more righteous" junk please.

How about "Men are pigs"?   Just poll single women and ask them how many decent guys there are that are marriage material.

However, don't poll them and ask how many would be willing to enter a polygamous relationship. I think we know what the answer would be.  

I'm not trying to endorse polygamy. I'm just trying to be a bit flip and to point out that many women would agree that there is an imbalance between decent men and decent women. I'm not sure what men think - I'm guessing most are just looking for some action.

(Note: this is coming from someone who's been married for 17 years and has no idea what the single scene looks like and hopes never to find out. In other words, this is probably an ignorant post.)

[Scott Lloyd]

kawikadave, on Apr 24 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

How about "Men are pigs"?   Just poll single women and ask them how many decent guys there are that are marriage material.

However, don't poll them and ask how many would be willing to enter a polygamous relationship. I think we know what the answer would be.  

I'm not trying to endorse polygamy. I'm just trying to be a bit flip and to point out that many women would agree that there is an imbalance between decent men and decent women. I'm not sure what men think - I'm guessing most are just looking for some action.

(Note: this is coming from someone who's been married for 17 years and has no idea what the single scene looks like and hopes never to find out. In other words, this is probably an ignorant post.)

As one who married later in life and who saw far more of the "single scene" than he ever desired to, I would say the observation that decent women outnumber decent men is probably a correct one. This is why assertions like "the numbers don't work out" are overly simplistic and do not take cognizance of the big picture.

[truthseeker2]

kawikadave, on Apr 24 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

No one is saying that polygamy was properly practiced by everyone. There certainly were abuses and neglect. However, one could say the same thing about marriage in general. Some husbands are loving, respectful, and caring. Others are abusive, cold, and harsh.

This is not news.

Not even to the same extent as polygamy.  Really think about it, 1 relationship is difficult enough, try multiplying that by a factor of 18 to 19 times.  No doubt a number of these unions were in fact great for all parties involved, but then there were a number of not so great examples of it not working.

I will hand you the fact that by an large a great number of those in these relationships did in fact support the practice, and that could have been for several reasons.  The mormons of that era had been subjected to enormous persecution, and simply times were much different then today.  But arguing that polygamy was this wonderful experience that everyone was on board with is naive.  

As for the sexual dimension, if your claiming that they didn't enter polygamy just for the sex, then I'll agree.  But procreation was a huge reason for these marriages.  More importantly these relationships  were sought after for the post mortal glory that they'd receive through the extended family they created while in their earthly existence.

There is much debate over Josephs marriages.  #1 his first wife Emma was not the most willing participant in the polygamy lifestyle.  There were a number of these polygamous unions Joseph had that resulted in those wives being "put out" by Emma.  The sources that I draw these conclusions come from are both LDS and non-LDS, and not from Anti scholarship.  Therefore it's not difficult to understand why those whom are not LDS would doubt the claim that Polygamy was purely holy and without any guile.

Obviously Dave you believe that the revelation comes from God, and it's difficult to separate emotion from discussion in this issue, and you've demonstrated your inability to speak about this subject in a respectful manner.

[why me]

What I have found interesting is the spiritual witness that was received by some of these polygamous wives during JS's time. Lucy Walker comes to mind. To claim that polygamy was not from god or to be turned off by polygamy would deny the many witnesses that were received by the women praying about the concept and on whether or not to accept the polygamous sealing.

And I cannot deny these women their spiritual experiences or witnesses.  

Edited by why me, 24 April 2007 - 10:59 AM.

[Tchild2]

kawikadave, on Apr 24 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

I have to disagree TChild.

Are you trying to say that polygamy was "acceptable" in American culture in 1842 (and was adopted) but wasn't in 1890 (and was dropped)?

I don't think that Polygamy in the context of a male dominated hierarchial order was acceptable, but the political ramifications for Utah and the church at the turn of the century did create the need to discontinue the practice.

[Scott Lloyd]

truthseeker2, on Apr 24 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

Obviously Dave you believe that the revelation comes from God, and it's difficult to separate emotion from discussion in this issue, and you've demonstrated your inability to speak about this subject in a respectful manner.

A couple of his comments have been somewhat jovial, but, searching the thread, I see nothing disrespectful from him. You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that one who believes that plural marriage is/was a true principle given by revelation from God is incapable of discussing the matter intelligently. This I find absurd -- and disrespectful.

[why me]

truthseeker2, on Apr 24 2007, 10:53 AM, said:

Not even to the same extent as polygamy.  Really think about it, 1 relationship is difficult enough, try multiplying that by a factor of 18 to 19 times.  No doubt a number of these unions were in fact great for all parties involved, but then there were a number of not so great examples of it not working.

I will hand you the fact that by an large a great number of those in these relationships did in fact support the practice, and that could have been for several reasons.  The mormons of that era had been subjected to enormous persecution, and simply times were much different then today.  But arguing that polygamy was this wonderful experience that everyone was on board with is naive.  

As for the sexual dimension, if your claiming that they didn't enter polygamy just for the sex, then I'll agree.  But procreation was a huge reason for these marriages.  More importantly these relationships  were sought after for the post mortal glory that they'd receive through the extended family they created while in their earthly existence.

There is much debate over Josephs marriages.  #1 his first wife Emma was not the most willing participant in the polygamy lifestyle.  There were a number of these polygamous unions Joseph had that resulted in those wives being "put out" by Emma.  The sources that I draw these conclusions come from are both LDS and non-LDS, and not from Anti scholarship.  Therefore it's not difficult to understand why those whom are not LDS would doubt the claim that Polygamy was purely holy and without any guile.

Obviously Dave you believe that the revelation comes from God, and it's difficult to separate emotion from discussion in this issue, and you've demonstrated your inability to speak about this subject in a respectful manner.

It is true that some women felt overwhelmed by the experience as well as the men. This would be just plain human. However, this does not imply that the revelation did not come from god or that the practice was wrong. What it does imply is that the human being can loose sight of the eternal perspective within a temporal world.

What I find interesting in the show 'Big Love' is the relationship between the personalities of the wives. But I also find it interesting that in the end, they all realize the internal and eternal perspective of the marriages and the love that they all have for one another.

I am sure that if one would keep this perspective in mind, polygamy would or could be successful and or respectful.

Edited by why me, 24 April 2007 - 11:05 AM.

[MorningStar]

I am amazed at the saints who were willing to practice polygamy and I'm glad it's not required of me.

Here's something I've been wondering.  Wouldn't it be more difficult for a man to abuse seven wives than one wife?  You'd think they'd gang up on him.

[kawikadave]

truthseeker2, on Apr 24 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

No doubt a number of these unions were in fact great for all parties involved, but then there were a number of not so great examples of it not working.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on this point. I'm not.

truthseeker2, on Apr 24 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

But arguing that polygamy was this wonderful experience that everyone was on board with is naive.

And your continued use of strawmen in this discussion is annoying. Where has anyone said that polygamy was a "wonderful experience" and that "everyone was on board"? What I've read and stated is that it was extremely difficult and challenging.

truthseeker2, on Apr 24 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

As for the sexual dimension, if your claiming that they didn't enter polygamy just for the sex, then I'll agree.

Thank you. That was my point and I'm glad you agree.

truthseeker2, on Apr 24 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

But procreation was a huge reason for these marriages.  More importantly these relationships  were sought after for the post mortal glory that they'd receive through the extended family they created while in their earthly existence.

I agree with that as well.

truthseeker2, on Apr 24 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

Obviously Dave you believe that the revelation comes from God, and it's difficult to separate emotion from discussion in this issue, and you've demonstrated your inability to speak about this subject in a respectful manner.

Really? Maybe you should focus more on the beam in your own eye and dispense with the accusations and strawmen. Once you do that maybe you'll find more civil conversation.

Edited by kawikadave, 24 April 2007 - 11:16 AM.

[Scott Lloyd]

MorningStar, on Apr 24 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

I am amazed at the saints who were willing to practice polygamy and I'm glad it's not required of me.

Here's something I've been wondering.  Wouldn't it be more difficult for a man to abuse seven wives than one wife?  You'd think they'd gang up on him.