Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

APA on Consensual Nonmonogamy spin-off thread: Mormon Polygamy


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

This is an important point often neglected in judging polygamy of the era. I don't think many from that era (Mormon or gentile) dealt with marriage or parenthood particularly well.

I think they did better than we are doing (in the aggregate), albeit with less effective ideas about marriage.  And they had a lot less to work with (longer work days, lots of manual labor, inferior food / healthcare / communications / public safety).

I don't idealize the 19th century, or the Saints that lived during that time.  But we have so many more tools and resources than they did, and the institutions of marriage and family are, I think, worse off now than they were back then.

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Especially in the post-war era romance and love are seen as the key constituents of marriage. While it's wrong to say such things were absent from the 19th century, they certainly weren't dominant.

Yep.  Also, the significance of and emphasis on children is also substantially different now as compared to then.   

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That said though, polygamy made existing structures worse in many ways.

That may be too broad a conclusion.

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Even if it was a test to see if people could live out of love rather than lust, and to provide families for widows, in practice it simply didn't function that way usually. (Which isn't to deny that occasionally it did) I frequently wonder if half the condemnations from the Lord we got in the early Utah period were due to living the principle so poorly - although some of that I also attribute to the late Nauvoo period.

We would do a far, far worse job handling polygamy now as compared to how our ancestors fared.

Ah, well.  Mormon 9:32 comes to mind whenever I contemplate the travails of the early Saints:

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We would do a far, far worse job handling polygamy now as compared to how our ancestors fared.

Why do believe that would be true?  (Honest question as I'd love to hear your reasons behind that belief).

I actually feel that much of the problems with polygamy in the early days of the church (especially in Nauvoo, but also with some later), was the extreme secrecy and deceit involved.  Polygamy is lived much more out in the open today (from what I know of it) and among consenting adults.  I know that's not always the case with the fundamentalists, but that's again where problems arise, IMO (marrying teens and young girls).

Also add in the polyandry and it became a mess, IMO, for many involved in that (and again more secrecy and deceit for many).

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's an inherently difficult arrangement.  Perhaps D&C 132 had more to do with sifting and/or Jacob 2:30 reasoning, and was not intended to be a long-term element of the Restored Church (at present, anyway).

I actually don't believe polygamy was needed as a part of restoring the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

IMO, it was never commanded (that we have a record of) by Christ or taught as an essential part of His gospel.  And for sure, polyandry didn't need to be restored (IMO).  I know many disagree with me on that (as we've already discussed here at times), but those are my beliefs.  I believe it came from men and it was a mistake that the church is still suffering over and are still having negative consequences from how it was practiced.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I actually don't believe polygamy was needed as a part of restoring the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

I do.  I can't imagine God imposing such a terrible burden on His Church without having a very good reason for it.

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

IMO, it was never commanded (that we have a record of) by Christ

Apparently it was commanded, though.  D&C 132 is right there.

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

or taught as an essential part of His gospel. 

We can't say either way, though.  But since authorized polygamy both preceded and followed the Lord's mortal ministry, I'm inclined to think it was "part of His gospel."

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And for sure, polyandry didn't need to be restored (IMO). 

With respect, I disagree.  See here: Restoration of All Things

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why do believe that would be true?  (Honest question as I'd love to hear your reasons behind that belief).

I wrote out a response and got a Rule 403 error.  Sorry!

Link to comment
13 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Interesting. So we either have the commandment of polygamy being a “truth nugget” that’s made its way into nearly every culture and religion or it’s a perversion of the monogamous family that has gotten popular throughout history. I think it might be a little of both since Satan rarely creates his own ideas and just rips off true principles. Maybe polygamy is okay but only if you 1) can truly love and take care of the other wives and 2) are given those wives by revelation from the Lord. 

However, dozens to hundreds of concubines/wives used purely for sex or child bearing and then essentially neglected of affection, is probably not approved.

Who knows honestly? This debate has been going on from the beginning of this dispensation and I would imagine has been going on a lot longer then even that.

Muslims have commented on the difficulties of polygyny, and the new State of Israel outlawed any future polygyny in 1948, although not breaking up existing Jewish or Muslim polygynist marriages -- both of which were legal in Muslim countries, and still are.

The presentism of modern times cannot possibly understand polygyny and concubinage in very ancient times.  The same applies to the institutions of eunuchs and slaves anciently, when such was entirely normal.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do.  I can't imagine God imposing such a terrible burden on His Church without having a very good reason for it.

My belief is that polygamy did not come from God, but from man.  So I agree with you that God would not have imposed this on the early saints to live.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently it was commanded, though.

We have had this discussion and there is no record of God commanding polygamy (the closest is when it is a part of the Levirate marriages, but was never an essential part of them).  I believe what is in the D&C regarding polygamy came from man (and much of it was written for Emma, IMO, because of the problems Joseph was having convincing her he was supposed to marry Fanny, her house maids and other men's wives).

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  See here: Restoration of All Things

Where do we have a record that polyandry was commanded by God or ever lived by past Prophets or was an essential part of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

If polyandry was never commanded or practiced as a part of His gospel, what was there to restore?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

My belief is that polygamy did not come from God, but from man.  So I agree with you that God would not have imposed this on the early saints to live.

Alas, we have D&C 132.  And a lot of other evidence, as well.  But let's now re-plow that ground.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We have had this discussion and there is no record of God commanding polygamy (the closest is when it is a part of the Levirate marriages, but was never an essential part of them). 

Yes, there is.  D&C 132.  2 Samuel 12:7-8.  Jacob 2:30.  And much more.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe what is in the D&C regarding polygamy came from man (and much of it was written for Emma, IMO, because of the problems Joseph was having convincing her he was supposed to marry Fanny, her house maids and other men's wives).

But that doesn't account for OT polygamy.  Or BOM polygamy.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where do we have a record that polyandry was commanded by God or ever lived by past Prophets or was an essential part of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

First please substantiate the meaning of "essential part of the gospel of Jesus Christ."  Then we could look at the above scriptures.

Out of curiosity, is/was animal sacrifice an "essential part of the gospel" in your view?

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If polyandry was never commanded or practiced as a part of His gospel, what was there to restore?

It was commanded.  And practiced "as a part of His gospel."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that doesn't account for OT polygamy.

Not commanded by God (that there is record of).  Yes, it was practiced and allowed, but no record of God commanding people to live polygamy in order to live the gospel.  The first we hear of this taking place came from Joseph Smith.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It was commanded.  And practiced "as a part of His gospel."

Polyandry?

CFR

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't imagine God imposing such a terrible burden on His Church without having a very good reason for it.

I’ve got to say that doesn’t describe anything that a loving father would command his children to be a part of in order to live the gospel (restored or original requirements) and have joy.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not commanded by God (that there is record of). 

I don't think you can draw that conclusion.  "If we don't have a record of X from 2,500 years ago, then X did not happen" is not workable.  We have to extrapolate and infer, particularly as to matters of faith.  

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, it was practiced and allowed, but no record of God commanding people to live polygamy in order to live the gospel. 

I didn't say it is needed "in order to live the gospel," though.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The first we hear of this taking place came from Joseph Smith.

Nope.  Nathan said it first, then Jacob.  And that's just from the extant scripture.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I’ve got to say that doesn’t describe anything that a loving father would command his children to be a part of in order to live the gospel (restored or original requirements) and have joy.  

I think it does describe that.  It takes context and a broader perspective, one that transcends the "ick factor" that folks like you and me have about polygamy.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  Nathan said it first, then Jacob.  And that's just from the extant scripture.

Really?  Can you quote where they said it was a commandment from God to live polygamy? (Or just references).

I haven’t seen that (other than a dead man’s wives given to David with no force or command to accept them or practice polygamy).  

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it does describe that.  It takes context and a broader perspective, one that transcends the "ick factor" that folks like you and me have about polygamy.  

I don’t believe that.  I also don’t believe something that took lies and caused pain and betrayal to restore was ever something Christ would teach as a part of his gospel.  

We can just agree to disagree though.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Polyandry?

CFR

I’m anxious to see any record of that too!

Polandry is a difficult one to understand.  Maybe Joseph felt he needed to restore polygamy, but that could have been done without marrying already married women!

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it does describe that.  It takes context and a broader perspective, one that transcends the "ick factor" that folks like you and me have about polygamy.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Presuming that G-d wouldn't ask polygyny of His people runs directly counter to His asking human sacrifice of Abraham.

It makes no logical sense and it breaks the hearts of those asked to to it, but at some point the ram is found and we can move on from it.  Heb 12:6:

Quote

For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think they did better than we are doing (in the aggregate), albeit with less effective ideas about marriage.  And they had a lot less to work with (longer work days, lots of manual labor, inferior food / healthcare / communications / public safety).

I'm hard pressed to think of what they (early Utahn Mormons) did better than we are doing (early 21st century active Mormons). In general I excuse them somewhat because the trials were in many ways worse and they were far more ignorant of many things. But it objective terms I think it hard to say they did better.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That may be too broad a conclusion.

I'd disagree but it's hard to say too much without you getting specific.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We would do a far, far worse job handling polygamy now as compared to how our ancestors fared.

I'm not sure. Recall that a substantial part of the Church didn't live the principle and schismed over it. Further many were introduced to it only in Utah when it was often difficult to leave.

I suspect were it commanded today we'd have at least as big a schism and probably larger but that we'd do a far better job living it ethically. i.e. paying attention to the feelings of wives. Not that I expect it to return. Of course the biggest problem with polygamy is the numbers. They just don't work.

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Polandry is a difficult one to understand.  Maybe Joesph felt he needed to restore polygamy, but that could have been done without marrying already married women!

I don't quite understand this one. Why is polygny OK but polandry bad? I confess I don't see how one can say that unless one sees male marriage and female marriage as intrisically of different worth. Now if you talk about how Brigham treated the polandrous marriages like Zina's, I think that is deeply problematic. Although probably tied to Brigham's relative ignorance. But I don't think one can say multiple wives is OK but multiple husbands isn't without having a deeply double standard. To me when I first learned about polandry studying Zina Huntington's life in college it actually made polygamy seem less bad.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I actually feel that much of the problems with polygamy in the early days of the church (especially in Nauvoo, but also with some later), was the extreme secrecy and deceit involved.  Polygamy is lived much more out in the open today (from what I know of it) and among consenting adults.  

I think that was definitely a problem in Nauvoo as was Emma's opposition while Joseph loved her and wasn't willing to abandon her. That led to all sorts of issues. Had the Saints left Nauvoo before Joseph was martyred, fled west, and lived it in the open things may have developed differently. But we'll never know. I also wonder what would have happened had they followed Islam and put a 4 marriage total limit on the practice.

I suspect there's still be problems, much as there are still tons of problems in say contemporary polygamist groups. (Ignoring the RLDS which had additional issues) But there may well have been fewer than there were.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Really?  Can you quote where they said it was a commandment from God to live polygamy? (Or just references).

2 Samuel 12:7-8. 

Quote

7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Also Jacob 2:30:

Quote

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.

What, in your view, is the predicate of "command my people" in this verse?

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I haven’t seen that (other than a dead man’s wives given to David with no force or command to accept them or practice polygamy).  

That seems like a mighty fine hair to split.  And the "command" is explicit in Jacob 2.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't quite understand this one. Why is polygny OK but polandry bad? 

Oh, I actually don’t think polygamy was OK.  But Joseph claims he was commanded to restore polygamy.  That alone took lies and betrayal (at least the way he went about living it).  But why go as far as to go after women who were already married and sometimes to members of the church?

Was that a necessary part of restoring polygamy?

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

2 Samuel 12:7-8. 

Also Jacob 2:30:

What, in your view, is the predicate of "command my people" in this verse?

I see no command in those verses (and then an “if” in the other.)

Now quote what Joseph claims an angel sent from God stated to him.  That’s a command 😉

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, JulieM said:
Quote

I think it does describe that.  It takes context and a broader perspective, one that transcends the "ick factor" that folks like you and me have about polygamy.  

I don’t believe that.  

I'm okay with that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

I'm likewise uneasy about levirate marriages, animal sacrifice, and some other facets of the Gospel.  I'm okay with that, though.

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I also don’t believe something that took lies and caused pain and betrayal to restore was ever something Christ would teach as a part of his gospel.  

So only the commandments which are perfectly understood and perfectly accepted and perfectly implemented by everyone everywhere are "part of his gospel?"

I don't think the precept, in and of itself, is problematic (even though, again, I an uneasy about it).  It is the implementation that I think is tough.

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We can just agree to disagree though.

Quite so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I see no command in those verses (and then an “if” in the other.)

Hence the need to construe and contextualize 2 Samuel.

But Jacob 2 contains the very word "command."  Again, what, in your view, is the predicate of "command my people" in this verse?  Would you be willing to finish the thought?

"For  if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up  seed unto me, I will command my people {to __________________________}; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

How do you fill in the blank?

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Now quote what Joseph claims an angel sent from God stated to him.  That’s a command 😉

Not sure what you are doing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That seems like a mighty fine hair to split.  And the "command" is explicit in Jacob 2.

So is the "if." I think Jacob is a poor source to appeal to there. We don't know what form Genesis took on the brass plates (my guess is that it was fairly different) but I suspect Jacob is referring to something on the brass plates that's not explicit in Genesis. For example the major polygamous relationship is Hagar but in Genesis it's Sarai who tells Abraham to have children by her. Then Sarai is jealous and mad and beats Hagar. It's actually a pretty horrific narrative. I wonder if the version on the brass plates was different.

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh, I actually don’t think polygamy was OK.  But Joseph claims he was commanded to restore polygamy.  That alone took lies and betrayal (at least the way he went about living it).  But why go as far as to go after women who were already married and sometimes to members of the church?

Was that a necessary part of restoring polygamy?

I don't know. All we really have relative to polygamy is D&C 132 which is much, much later and then memories of typically the women. Was Joseph commanded in who to approach or was it left to his own wisdom and in that case poor thinking? I don't think we can say given the public data. I think Todd Compton makes a compelling argument that Joseph's practice of polygamy was wrapped up in dynastic marriages -- thus why not all of them were consumated and why he was fine with polyandry in cases like Zina Huntington. I think it clear Brigham Young thought polyandry  was a mistake and he made everyone divorce their husbands. (This was particularly tragic in the case of Zina IMO) Later on the plains Brigham has the vision about adoption with Joseph telling him about it. While it's not initially practiced, that comes to replace the conception of dynastic marriages and tends to be how we think of it today. But of course if dynastic marriages were a mistake, why doesn't God tell him that? That suggests I think that there's more here than merely an early misunderstanding about how sealing lines function. What that is isn't clear to me though.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm hard pressed to think of what they (early Utahn Mormons) did better than we are doing (early 21st century active Mormons).

Joseph Smith, speaking of the early Saints, described them as "the best people under the heavens."

They sacrificed and consecrated much.  And the idea of polygamy was, I think, much more repellant to them given their milieu.  And yet they accepted it and lived it, with varying degrees of success.

I dunno.  Perhaps there really isn't much value in comparing one era's folks against another era's folks.

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure. Recall that a substantial part of the Church didn't live the principle and schismed over it.

And the biggest schism in decades has centered on an obscure policy that had de minimis actual effect on anyone.  And then thousands upon thousands have resigned their membership over it.

Are we, in the aggregate, more "fairweather" than our 19th century predecessors?  I'm concerned that we might be.

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect were it commanded today we'd have at least as big a schism and probably larger but that we'd do a far better job living it ethically. i.e. paying attention to the feelings of wives. 

I dunno.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...