Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

phaedrus ut

Living among polygamists

Recommended Posts

No polyandry, eh? According to LDS historians Joseph was married to women who were siamotainously married to other men. But I am sure there is yet another "logical explanation" for that. rolleyes.gif

The real explanation is in my sig.

Did he live with these women? Did he consume the marriages? No, these were only for the purpose of sealing, whose definition was broader then.

Share this post


Link to post

No polyandry, eh? According to LDS historians Joseph was married to women who were siamotainously married to other men. But I am sure there is yet another "logical explanation" for that. rolleyes.gif

The real explanation is in my sig.

I know that Pratt was married to a few "married" women as well, as far as I know these women were converts who's husbands refused to grant divorces to them. I know Pratt's last wife fled to Utah because her family sought to have her committed to an asylum as "religiously insane".

In this situation it isn't unheard of for the original marriage to be considered absolved even though the state she is from still considers her legally married.

I don't know all the facts on Joseph's married wives, but I do know a fair amount about Pratt's.

Also I never stated that the LDS Church ever said polyandry was declared wrong by the Church. I stated my opinion why polyandry wouldn't work within the confines of the doctrine of the Church as I see it. I am sorry if my post seemed to reflect offical policy of the Church it does not, and was only meant to present my opinions not Church policy in the 1830's and 1840's.

Share this post


Link to post

Did he live with these women? Did he consume the marriages? No, these were only for the purpose of sealing, whose definition was broader then.

Of course he didn't because these marriages are fiction. Either way he would have been stealing men's wives in eternity, if this were true. How do you feel about that? How would you like it if President Monson started rearranging families and assigning wives to other men?

Share this post


Link to post

Did he live with these women? Did he consume the marriages? No, these were only for the purpose of sealing, whose definition was broader then.

This is another valid point in the argument I presented! Thank you for the assist nicolasconnault

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I absolutely know that there are faithful women in the church who are THAT put off by polygamy that they don't want their entire families to be exalted if that is what exaltation requires. But I also know that they aren't the first women to take such an absolutist opinion on the subject, and there are likely to be multiple opportunities to change their thinking (or maybe to just receive actual knowledge rather than speculation, or to develop faith in God that moves them from where they currently are).

And I think it is easy for men to take the position that such feelings are absurd, because they aren't doing the sharing.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course he didn't because these marriages are fiction. Either way he would have been stealing men's wives in eternity, if this were true. How do you feel about that? How would you like it if President Monson started rearranging families and assigning wives to other men?

Like I previously said, as far as I know the married women had fled spouses who refused to divorce them after they converted to the Church. Many fled because they were facing potential commitment to insane asylums, because they were Mormon.

In this situation the spouse is abandoned, in this case the original marriage can be considered annulled in Illinois or Utah even though the state the person was married in does not recognize the annulment.

I know of a couple cases where this has happened in modern times, there is a man from the US who after 8 years of court battles and thousands spent on attorneys finally regained custody of his kidnapped son. The reason why it took so long was the kidnapper was the boys mother, she was a citizen of Brazil. She packed up one day without any notice, took there child and moved to Brazil. She had her marriage annulled in Brazil and refused to return the man's son. She remarried and died within a year of her new marriage, the son was now in the custody of his new step father.

The man spent years suing, and the US almost cut diplomatic ties with Brazil. The US wanted the mother arrested, but Brazil wouldn't do it because under Brazil law a mother has the right to custody and under there law she was divorced even though she was legally married in the US.

Long story short after a long court battle this man was finally reunited with his son after 7 to 8 years!

Another good example is another American man, he is in jail in Japan for kidnapping, he married a Japanese woman and they moved to the US. She decided to leave and took the mans kids, once again the US saw them as married and put out warrants for the mothers arrest for kidnapping.

Japan refused to acknowledge the warrants since Japanese law saw the woman as having rightful custody and didn't recognize the US marriage. The man went to Japan, against the desire to the State Department, recaptured his kids and made a break for the US Embassy, he was arrested within feet of the Embassy Gates and is in jail for life for kidnapping.

If this is the situation with these marrages, these women were not considered married when they were sealed, even though another state saw them as sealed.

Share this post


Link to post

Polygamy was also important in early LDS history because of the fact that many men were killed while they were being chased from Missouri and Illinois. When Section 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants was revealed by God, marriage was now a requirement to obtain exaltation. So with so many more women than men, lots of women would be doomed to never receive the highest glory without polygamy.

That's a often repeated justification but not one supported by the facts. Many historians have written about it.

"The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church...The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah...This theory is not defensible since there was no surplus of women."

(John A. Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations)

Polygamy was instituted even though there were more males in the church.

Phaedrus

Share this post


Link to post

Polygamy was instituted even though there were more males in the church.

But were there more righteous males?

Share this post


Link to post

For what it's worth, I'm very close friends with a beautiful woman who is at the tail end of a painful divorce. When I first met her 7+ years ago, before she'd married, she expressed rather strong antipathy toward the whole concept of polygamy. A few months ago, however, when we were talking at the home of a mutual friend, she brought the issue up again. She said that, having been through a marriage which was a living hell of abuse, she'd changed her mind. If she were happily married at some point in future, she said, the first thing she'd want to do is to share that happiness with another woman who might not be as good off.

Personally, I feel the same way. The blessings of the Gospel in my life are such that I feel overwhelmed by them sometimes and don't know what to do with them all. I genuinely feel that I am of all men most blessed. There are many ways of sharing those blessings, and I'm not really bothered by any of them.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the problem is the confines of the patriarchy, it is the confines of doctrine. The purpose of marriage is to create children to give spirits bodies to reside in.

Since we don't know the process by which spirits are created, drawing any conclusions on our eternal relationship based on this assumption would be inappropriate. While it may be almost identical to physical conception, there is the possibility that it may not be anything like it with something along the lines of an instantaneous process with no 'pregnancy' occurring or even the male being the one who is "pregnant" or some sort of group 'pregnancy'.

Share this post


Link to post

For her it's a issue of women's rights. In her eyes it denies a wife the right to equality in the family by having to share her husband romantically and sexually with multiple women. To quote her specifically she said "can you imagine sharing your husband with 30 other women? That's not a relationship but just a notch above slavery". And in her eyes having to live like that with husband or her father practicing polygamy isn't worth it.

Phaedrus

My wife would feel it was better than a trip to Tahiti to have all that time to herself :P

She's not exactly one of your "clingy" types!

Share this post


Link to post

I always find these "polygamy in the CK" discussions a little depressing(even though I've started a few in my day).

1)Both people who can't wait to "get some wives" and those who hate the idea assume they are a shoe in for the CK and exaltation. Really? Cuz I know I'm not. I'm working on it but I know I can do alot more before I can claim to have done "all I can do" and expect to get a crown. On what grounds do these people know they aren't going to the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom? Before we speculate about our future lives, lets focus on living this one right.

2)Assuming all gods are polygamists(I suspect they are but I don't know that for sure and wouldn't be shocked to find out they aren't; frankly, I don't care), the idea that someone would forsake godhood and life with Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, Jesus Christ and everyone else because they hate PM, today, is strange. I think they're bluffing.

What part of godhood don't we understand? So, you have the power to crush a super nova jedi-style but you can't handle a polygamous situation? You have the capacity to love everyone and everything in the multiverse, but you can't help but get jealous of a sister wife? I don't get it.

3)Im bothered by the spirit of some of these conversations. Aren't there other, more pressing matters we should be discussing?

I personally have learned not to have these conversations because people only argue for what they want to exist in the CK, not what actually does(which isn't even knowable without divine revelation). This issue, more than any other, creates a danger of turning apologetics/philosophical discussions into mere sessions of wish fulfillment and religion making.

Those were my two cents....... :P

Share this post


Link to post

A very active but somewhat feminist leaning friend of mine commented that unlike another of our mutual friends she could never live in close proximity to polygamist families. When I asked if she would be comfortable living among polygamists in the celestial kingdom she paused and told me that if any of her immediately family wanted to practice polygamy she would choose to drop to a lower kingdom.

Does anyone else feel the same?

Phaedrus

No, I don't feel this way. I think that once one dies and is with heavenly father, one comes to understand these personal issues better. I don't think that we can comprehend what happens in the celestial kingdom nor the workings of heavenly father until we live with him in celestial glory. Your friend at this moment has a very earthly perspective about polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post

Polygamy was also important in early LDS history because of the fact that many men were killed while they were being chased from Missouri and Illinois.

How many men were killed during these events?

Share this post


Link to post

Polygamy was also important in early LDS history because of the fact that many men were killed while they were being chased from Missouri and Illinois.

I believe it was Elder Widtsoe that did research in this area and found the stats had more men in Utah than women at this time (though this does not address the statistics of temple worthy men to temple worthy women), it was his conclusion that polygamy occurred for one reason only...because the Lord commanded it. See his Evidences and Reconciliations volumes on this issue for more info (if my memory is correct, since I just kicked my daughter off her computer, I feel obligated to get off mine as well.

As far as men being killed, there were a number of women who died in childbirth and other problems during the troubles and trek so it is possible that the numbers equaled out more or less (in my own family more women and children died than men).

Share this post


Link to post

I believe it was Elder Widtsoe that did research in this area and found the stats had more men in Utah than women at this time (though this does not address the statistics of temple worthy men to temple worthy women), it was his conclusion that polygamy occurred for one reason only...because the Lord commanded it. See his Evidences and Reconciliations volumes on this issue for more info (if my memory is correct, since I just kicked my daughter off her computer, I feel obligated to get off mine as well.

As far as men being killed, there were a number of women who died in childbirth and other problems during the troubles and trek so it is possible that the numbers equaled out more or less (in my own family more women and children died than men).

I think this was more about raising a righteous "root stock" than about providing for the needs of many widows. The passage in Jacob supports this notion.

Share this post


Link to post

...If one man has several wives though there is no conflict here, he can keep all the women pregnant and produce many more children. This system produces far more potential births than monogamy, especially when there is a significantly higher number of women than men. This is why God only allows monogamy and at time when he commands so polygamy, and not polyandry.

...

800px-Joseph_F._Smith_family.png

Polygamy was also important in early LDS history because of the fact that many men were killed while they were being chased from Missouri and Illinois. When Section 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants was revealed by God, marriage was now a requirement to obtain exaltation. So with so many more women than men, lots of women would be doomed to never receive the highest glory without polygamy. Eternal Marriage being revealed as the requirement to receive the highest degree of celestial glory had a huge impact on polygamy.

Even if (as other here are saying) the number of men vs women remained close to the same or even more-- it is nontheless clear from all the scriptures that the Lord's marriage laws are based on patriarchy. So a "polygamy when necessary" argument (like you are giving) still makes sense.

With the option that a man can have more than one wife by revelation, then there is never any reason to deny any woman in the faith a marriage. Have you known women in the church who wanted to marry, but had problems and never did? I do. I am afraid that the church should have never given up fighting to live by this law "when necessary".

Richard

Share this post


Link to post

800px-Joseph_F._Smith_family.png

And Joseph F. Smith had only 5 plural wives. Imagine someone like Brigham Young with 55 wives. That would be quite a picture.

It's strange to me how many on this thread are OK with the familial arrangement pictured above. On a related note if someone does the temple work for a FLDS family can they seal the multiple wives to the husband?

Phaedrus

Share this post


Link to post

It's strange to me how many on this thread are OK with the familial arrangement pictured above.

Maybe that's because a picture of my great grandfather and great-great grandfather's families would be similar.

Share this post


Link to post

On a related note if someone does the temple work for a FLDS family can they seal the multiple wives to the husband?

I don't think the FLDS have been around long enough for their descendents to try to do the work of their dead ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post

With the option that a man can have more than one wife by revelation, then there is never any reason to deny any woman in the faith a marriage. Have you known women in the church who wanted to marry, but had problems and never did? I do. I am afraid that the church should have never given up fighting to live by this law "when necessary".

Will there ever be a time when an argument could not be made that polygyny is somewhat "necessary," especially based on 1) the desire that there should be more Mormons -- especially born to the "chosen" men in the church-- and 2) there are women who would like to be married but have been unable to find a suitable mate. These reasons have never gone away, and never will.

But I think the membership at large is soured on the concept and would not accept its return, and in fact, I believe most members (as well as most of the leaders) wish it had never happened.

Share this post


Link to post

Since we don't know the process by which spirits are created, drawing any conclusions on our eternal relationship based on this assumption would be inappropriate. While it may be almost identical to physical conception, there is the possibility that it may not be anything like it with something along the lines of an instantaneous process with no 'pregnancy' occurring or even the male being the one who is "pregnant" or some sort of group 'pregnancy'.

I agree nothing is known about the process by which Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother made our spirits, all we know is that spirits are made from Intelligence which is eternal. I never said or implied there was a celestial pregnancy or celestial sex.

I am really confused here cause your quote from me has absolutely nothing to do with your response. Could you please clarify for me! Thank you

Share this post


Link to post

Will there ever be a time when an argument could not be made that polygyny is somewhat "necessary," especially based on 1) the desire that there should be more Mormons -- especially born to the "chosen" men in the church-- and 2) there are women who would like to be married but have been unable to find a suitable mate. These reasons have never gone away, and never will.

But I think the membership at large is soured on the concept and would not accept its return, and in fact, I believe most members (as well as most of the leaders) wish it had never happened.

I have not doubt that many members wish polygamy never happened, in this age of constant idiocy called political correctness, anything that seems controversial is automatically bad and there is nothing looked in depth.

I do not believe though that many leaders (especially the General Authorities) feel this way, they have a strong testimony of Jesus Christ, I am sure that some of them have ever seen the savior! They have no more knowledge about why God commanded polygamy in the past, but they do have absolute faith in the revelations of God, they would never wish that God do things differently. They could not hold such a satanic desire in there hearts and still be a living apostle of Jesus Christ.

Fee leaders probably have this feeling (I would place them in the Ward and Stake leadership) but I doubt that no more than a handful (if any) Area Authorities hold such rebellious felling in there hearts, and if I was a betting man I would put every cent I ever made on the General Authorities not holding such feelings.

Share this post


Link to post

And Joseph F. Smith had only 5 plural wives. Imagine someone like Brigham Young with 55 wives. That would be quite a picture.

It's strange to me how many on this thread are OK with the familial arrangement pictured above. On a related note if someone does the temple work for a FLDS family can they seal the multiple wives to the husband?

Phaedrus

I don't think that man can make a canvas or camera big enough to do the Young Family Portrait!! They would have to break it down into at least 5 different groups!

Share this post


Link to post

Will there ever be a time when an argument could not be made that polygyny is somewhat "necessary," especially based on 1) the desire that there should be more Mormons -- especially born to the "chosen" men in the church-- and 2) there are women who would like to be married but have been unable to find a suitable mate. These reasons have never gone away, and never will.

Which would mean that these aren't the only reasons the commandment for plural marriage was given and then revoked.
But I think the membership at large is soured on the concept and would not accept its return, and in fact, I believe most members (as well as most of the leaders) wish it had never happened.
I don't. If it hadn't happened I wouldn't be here, since I am a descendent of a second wife in a plural marriage. The same is true for many of the leaders of the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...