Jump to content

juliann

Contributor
  • Posts

    14,882
  • Joined

Everything posted by juliann

  1. Oh for heaven's sakes. You cannot be unaware what special permission is. Are you denying exemptions don't exist? It means it deviates from the CHI and you have to ask the First Presidency for permission. I received permission for something that the CHI didn't allow, which I won't go into. I am sure you consider me a liar, but good luck throwing Rongo into that category. For what it is worth, I personally know a woman who is sealed to two live husbands. There has been at least one woman on this board who said she did the same, possibly two. If you spend any time in LDS women's sites, you will see others. It is usually accompanied by tales of it being freely granted to those with connections. For everyone else, what happens when you are given exceptions, you are asked not to disclose the exception...which is next to impossible with sealings because others are involved. So there is a high degree of secrecy involved which is why most people don't know about it....and why more women aren't demanding it, as they did for cancellations....resulting in a change of that horrible policy of making women have a new husband to get one. Regardless of the numbers, what even one such sealing means is that there is no doctrine against, or consequence, in allowing women to be sealed twice. People need to repeat that until it sinks in.
  2. And women are sealed to live multiple husbands by special permission, or in work for the dead. The process doesn't treat the sexes equitably but the results are the same in the end. (There is no longer an official statement that only women have to choose one spouse.)
  3. I think it would be a smart move to remove it. It is harsh and treats women as things to be given. It could easily be redacted with an honest explanation that polygamy is no longer permitted and this is causing confusion, especially to new members. I don't understand why there needs to be any issue about removing something from canon, that doesn't mean they are trying to hide it or deny it. It merely places polygamy where it belongs...as a historical relic.
  4. https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq_volume46_1978_number1/s/129529 this is a good article from the Utah Historical Society. I am having trouble cutting and pasting. It is a good summation of the troubled nature of polygamist marriages as shown through divorces. It also mentions that men who were trying to marry girls under 14 were denied permission.
  5. It was eliminated after polygamy stopped. The D&C was redacted and reprinted. But fundamentalists won, so to be fair, the church did try.
  6. JS did follow what was laid out in 132, polygyny and polyandry. The problem is the harshness of 132...it would be important to inform the RS that JS did not put this in the D&C, BY did much later. As for polygamy being rotten, come on. I'm a product of it. I admire my ancestors and am in awe of their sacrifices in coming to Utah and doing what they believed in. I'm also very proud of my ggrandfather for not abandoning his wives after the Manifesto. All the church needs to do is stop the speculation about polygamy in the afterlife, which they can easily do by making it public that they do seal women to two living husbands by special permission. This is where secrecy is hurting not only the church but women who think this is only for men.
  7. No they weren't. There wasn't that much wealth to get the participation they needed. And many men weren't following any rules, such as get permission from the existing wife or even an authority....especially when they were already polygamous. There are accounts of wives talking the husband into another wife...and plenty of stories of husbands going off on their own to court other women. From what I can tell, any functioning man who wanted another wife would be "authorized" if he bothered to ask. The point was to get everyone who was willing into polygamy, not to be selective....there were too many who wouldn't do it to be picky.
  8. I think this is why JS started, after the first, with married women. A married woman can bring more family into the sealing network than a single woman.
  9. It was someone on this board many years ago who pointed verse 41 out to me. I was astonished. What I find the most puzzling is that it can no longer be denied JS was practicing polyandry (although some like to pretend it wasn't "real.") That 132 wouldn't allow for that, and would even denounce it as JS practiced it, would be extraordinary. I don't know that JS knew what he had in mind. But I do think BY took the beginnings and then ran with it. And BY did not hold women in high regard, it is ridiculous to try and clean that up anymore than his views on Blacks. One only has to look at how BY treated his wives to see how he viewed women....which is why it is so obvious that his version of polygamy was not only based on the inequality of the sexes but intended to perpetuate it. And this is what we see as polygamy today, a 19th c. practice steeped in social, cultural, political suppression of women. And that is what some choose to defend rather than whatever the heck it was supposed to be. That is what makes polygamy so noxious, not the idea of multiple spouses itself.
  10. Yeah, this is the footnote: 20. Don Bradley to Brian C. Hales, November 11, 2008. Really? 2008? Should I tell you how many years ago that was? Are you unaware that Don is constantly researching and new stuff does come up? I'll ask him what his view is decades later the next time I see him. As for your using Ulrich as a source and then quoting this instead, https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1657&context=masters_theses, which is like using a book review instead of the original source, not impressed. Yes, I missed the link because it was placed in the undistinguished word "this" which was part of your sentence. So you provide a 98 page thesis as your evidence, without giving a single page number. That isn't acceptable here. You know we don't accept "here, read this book" as an appropriate response to a CFR, for example. As for "modern scholarship," the very name you used and her book is an example of not using anything but contemporary sources. Yeah, it's a thing now. That you are using sources for the sword where the first mention is decades later should give pause...and it does to even Hales and Elder Ballard.
  11. I call this the sock puppet appeal. And what happened to those who didn't practice it? What was their penalty?
  12. Another false dilemma. Historical polygamy just is. There is no need for judgment but there is a need for accuracy and fairness in accounts. The problems usually come when people, usually men, try to defend it rather than describe it accurately with the best available data....which we don't have enough of. Again, women aren't suffering over polygamy because of struggles of their ancestors. And I doubt a RS would be asking for information about more stories. The problem is in how women are still being treated and forced to contemplate something that even a poll found that a large majority of Mormons find it repulsive. (If anyone can remember that one, please link.) If you pay attention, these debates are always the same. The minute someone questions the old saws about polygamy without using current research that centers on women, it becomes contentious. There is never a willingness to allow for anything that might break down a narrative that if polygamy worked for some, it was OK. There is particularly never any attempt to describe what happened to the women and children who were discarded by husbands after the Manifesto[s] after this practice that some want to uphold as doctrine.
  13. I have the book you appear to be quoting. I can't tell what you are quoting, however, since you did not include page numbers. As for your "Bradley and Brian Hales researched" appeal to authority....you are not quoting Don Bradley. You are quoting Hales.
  14. Oh, boy...here we go. When you get backed into a corner you start misrepresenting. I did not call you dishonest. I said you what you were doing was intellectually dishonest. Do you not know what that is? It is the use of logical fallacies. Strawman, which you are using liberally, is a part of intellectual dishonesty. I'm not going to continue to engage with strawmen arguments or logical fallacies. There are more than two possibilities here so you will not be successful in trying to force me into your false dilemma defense. Another false dilemma. In other words, intellectual dishonesty? Your problem is I never claimed you claimed that. So the strawman and red herrings are yours.
  15. There is a downside to helping women set aside fears about what they have been fed about polygamy? Just so you know saying men are from Mars, women are from Venus is about as sexist as it gets. It only goes to prove that polygamy has always been presented through male eyes and the minute that is challenged, a lot of men fall apart if they can't get women's experiences with it put back on the shelf.
  16. Why in the world do you think that needs to be said again? What exactly do you think "only rich men could provide for additional wives" means if not what you just reiterated? Why are you taking up space repeating this?
  17. So how many of the polygamist families (I am using this useless term because I am referring only to the man) were rich? CFR While you are at it, how many wives were supporting other wives? Yes, that happened.
  18. You are seriously going to argue over a word, "discard?" This is why your extended posts become too much to read. You then admit that even the church hasn't pronounced it authentic. Yet that is one of the most ubiquitous polygamy stories ever. Discard means to get rid of something that isn't useful. I think that sums it up. Things that we rely on that are not authenticated are not useful, in fact, this is the very type thing that has hurt us badly when it comes to the many folk tales we have relied on as if they were doctrine. We lose members over that. So when we have statements that are decades after the event (as in the cricket story)we would be wise to tread carefully. Personally, I find it of little use...and almost silly....to put out the sword story as absolute proof and then have to say "but it's not authenticated!" before somebody beats you to it and makes you look like a little on the dishonest side. So, yes, discard.
  19. And here is the perfect example of the erasure of women in research that I referred to earlier. A count of families means nothing when it comes to numbers. It needs to be a count of people within that family, especially wives. The percentages will change depending on what they count. People were in and out of marriages. Do children in the women's families count in the estimate of who participated? That would greatly expand numbers. If someone was in a polygamist marriage for a couple of years but then married monogamously for the rest of their lives, does that count? What about those like my great grandfather who briefly had two wives but one died? Unfortunately, it rarely happens. That is why most people do not know that 132 allows for polyandry. The verses about the Lord stepping in because of the suffering of the women and children is always ignored for the snippet where the Lord says if he wanted polygamy, he would tell them. Funny how he doesn't tell them to do polygamy, though....right? This has gotten to the point where it is intellectually dishonest. You know darn well that those staunch public defenders were writing private journals that were anything but happy. Until you can come up with stats, it is also intellectually dishonest to pull the "for some" card. My best guess is it was the majority who were harmed....because women were the majority, and that is not even counting the children who had no relationship with a father. But only the rich men could provide. This isn't rocket science. Nor were goods always dispersed equally. I feel safe in estimating that almost all polygamist wives worked...with most supporting their own families. It is astonishing to me that men didn't seem to feel an obligation to support all their children from what I can see. The whole point was in acquiring women, not in supporting them. As for emotionally connecting, the wives were the man's glory, not necessarily love. BY is probably the worst example of blatant favoritism and lack of support for the unfavored wives. BTW, it was the wives who were being instructed to not love their husbands as a way of escaping Eve's Curse. Yup, comes everywhere from Eliza to BY. Funny how the men were never held to Adam's curse..... As for the very very tiresome bumper sticker about how great polygamy was for many....I can't recall his name right now, but a prominent early leader wrote an autobiography/diary and lauded his wives for their love for each other. His first wife hated the second wife. But you would have to go to her diary to know that. That is why so many say things like "some" had a hard time while many thought it was the bees knees. We only use the male perspective.
  20. And here is why we know polygamy isn't doctrinal. Look at what it turns men into. Which reminds me, Pres. Hinckley's TV statement that polygamy isn't doctrinal would be a good addition. Anybody who insists that he didn't say what he clearly said can surely come up with multiple statements from him gently correcting that perception.....not.
  21. First, a woman should be doing this but you are likely more knowlegable than some random person. This is a good list. I would start with the difficulty of researching polygamy and how it has always been formulated around the husbands with the wives as an afterthought to the point we don't even know their names. An example is how they count polygamist "families" as one entity, i.e., a man's family. That leaves out all the wives who had their own families. Second, don't miss the point. Polygamy is about inequality, as in the above example, several women are considered the same as one man. What comes with this are the feelings about it for women, that outweighs all of the research/facts/history. And it never gets addressed. The most damaging response ever is "we don't know." That leaves the future wide open. The only thing we don't know is what to do with this piece of history and why it happened. The best thing you could do for women is close it off with the Manifesto and the Proc....as well as official statements saying it is over. (I'd really emphasize the Proc because only rich men financially supported wives and as fathers, some kids didn't even know them. It is in direct violation of the Proc) Always treat polygamy as a discarded piece of our history that didn't work out well, not as something still in play. The usual response of men being sealed to multiple wives now is easily answered by what you are already aware of, women are being sealed to more than one husband. It is also important to note that the CHI dictate that wives would have to choose one husband when sealed to all dead husbands has been removed. The minute people have to throw in polyandry, assigning women positions as wives usually gets bogged down and stops. Also, except for the first wive, JS was being sealed to married women. Polygamy started with polyandry (see 132:41 where women are allowed to be with another man with a "holy annointing.")There will be some women who insist they would love the idea and it would be great to have help crap. A well crafted reminder that this demeans women and places them in secondary positions would be helpful. As well as how hurtful this is to so many women who do fear being in a secondary position. Third, polygamy was already dying, it isn't a sustainable practice. It resulted in men picking off younger and younger women. No one should ever be talking about polygamy as if it was always the same. It changed dramatically and needs to be addressed by era, not as "polygamy." Fourth, reading and researching it won't help with finding reasons because the problem is it's ickiness, not knowing more about it. In my experience, it only gets ickier the more you do find out. What is helpful is to read the accounts of the wives, in their own words, to give them their place in history. About the sword and angel, modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories (like the crickets and seagulls.) There is nothing from JS himself, others attributed it to him. That isn't a solid source. If I recall, it originated from one person. For me, the test in how someone views women is if they are able to include polyandry, like JS did, without needing to play games about sex. If they can't do that, women are in a secondary position to men and those people aren't really discussing polygamy, they are only maintaining men's superiority and right to acquire women at will. And I would be sure to tell the women that if any married man ever ever talks about acquiring more wives at some point that he be made to make a trip to the bishop's office for lusting after women.
  22. But it has happened. That, to me, is like saying it is rare for death penalty cases to suffer excruciating pain... so it doesn't need to be stopped.
  23. The vast majority of people are ok with early abortion. Most states are or will allow for it. There will always be some who don't, of course, so it does put more pressure on the woman to know her body and do it in time. I just can't get with unlimited abortion, it is sickening. Putting so much emphasis on late term rights did a lot of damage.
  24. I find the "let's talk about me!" approach to lessons stullifying when that is the main content. I know more and more members who are skipping GD although they go to RS/EQ. I dislike Come Follow Me more and more. There is so much stimulating stuff to be discovered in scriptures if we approach it on the author's own terms. My pet peeve is that we have literal bumper sticker summations of text chapters in lesson manuals. This time it was those wicked people picked a king over God. Like, huh? There are competing pro-kingship verses, at one point Samuel gives Saul a secret annointing and blessing. What inevitably gets left out is WHY they thought they needed a king. Something about that primal instinct to survive could be an important consideration before we make judgments about ancient people.... We have a good new teacher. He managed an interesting and thoughtful discussion that I enjoyed....but we only saw a couple of verses for the entire lesson. [We have a serious problem with this in sacrament meeting talks, too. It seems we had an emphasis on Christ for awhile and now we are meandering back to talking about ourselves as examples of God's love. Mormons really seem to have a blind spot when it comes to reading the audience, many of whom didn't receive that kind of love or miracle. As in, when you have members who have lost close family, do not...do NOT get up and talk about how you were miraculously saved because God decided to watch over you.]
  25. There never was an official church. What the heck do you read? The word church isn't even in the NT. It was a collection of sects, rather like today, until political force was used to force compliance. Eventually, denominations broke out. "Church" development looks much like an hourglass. As for merely "believing," that is not scriptural. Are you at all familiar with Paul? If you are claiming that you haven't heard Jesus for 4 years in the LDS church, BALONEY. Use the search function on LDS.org. and come back and claim that. Or, as we say here, CFR. Are you seriously claiming to have been LDS but have never listened to a General Conference? I love discussing the Bible. But if you aren't able to reference scholars who have given us the background information necessary to even begin to understand it, you aren't going to get much farther than your bad attitude on this board.
×
×
  • Create New...