yet another polygamy thread

[Who Knows]

Because there were plenty of critics who would read sinister motives into anything he said or did.

Let me also add the sentence before the text I quoted:

Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy.

Sorry Dad, I don't buy your excuse.

[KevinG]

Do you know anything about the history of some of Brigham's former wives? How about some who made careers about publishing outlandish and sensational claims about him out east?

Of course Brigham had to be very careful about defending his position, knowing that he was living in a fishbowl.

I don't buy your theory that he was imprisoning women and then making claims to the opposite. Given the ease of which they could obtain divorces the sinister plot theory lacks evidence of any kind.

In fact so many of the sensational stories about polygamy, that give rise to negative opinions about it, Brigham and the Church in general are made from whole cloth.

One just needs to see the outrageous claims made by many contemprary couples in the midst of a divorce to see that the expectation of objective reporting coming out of a divorce is not a realistic one.

[charity]

It seems really easy for someone to take a princple of the Gospel they would not live if called by God to do so, and then insult those who do.

Same tactic, different argument: "I wouldn't pay tithing if God told me to. And those people who do pay tithing obviously care more about what their bishop thinks than that their children don't have the latest iPod. MYSELF, I am such a good parent, I could never do that to my kid. Only bad parents would pay tithing."

So, women who would follow God's commandment are Lesbians, never really formed an attachment to their husbands, are emotionally deficient? What an insulting and really stupid thing to say to excuse one's own imperfections. Those who have engaged in that argument are only trying to make themselves feel better about deliberately chosing to be disobedient.

I have an extremely close relationship with my husband. I would not be unwilling for him to have plural wives, if he were so called to do so. And there would be blessings in a plural marriage that could not be approached in a monogamous marriage. For one thing, the men who were called to take plural wives would obviously be men of a higher caliber than those who were not. I certainly am married to a high caliber man, and if plural marriage would to come about again, he would be called.

And I would hope in any plural marriage that the second wife could have a husband who loved her. And any first wife who allowed a second wife hoping that the second wife was just a duty showed her own imperfections.

[Teancum]

Except that wasn't the case according to the descriptions of many of the early participants, who claimed they had personal manifestations of the Spirit, including visions that directed them to accept this practice.

Personal spiritual experience s and visions are entirely subjective to the recipient and are not empirically provable. Also, one needs to factor in a few things. First, those that received some sort of spiritual confirmation of plural marriage had to have great emotional duress because they already believed JS was prophet. As had been pointed out many times, Joseph used his position of power and authority to persuade particularly some women to accept the principle.

Next, many who had been loyal to Joseph did not receive spiritual witnesses or visions that plural marriage was correct. In fact, based on the fact that some loyal to him left him due to this issue may lead us to conclude that they received manifestations that JS was not acting of God in this regards.

All too subjective to rely on one man that says God can command or revoke and he does it through me.

Teancum

[Who Knows]

Do you know anything about the history of some of Brigham's former wives?

[Teancum]

I can joke about this because, of course, it isn't going to happen.

Regards,

Pahoran

I agree. Never. The LDS Church is the most anti plural marriage group there is. I am sure the current leaders wish it never happened (accepting those perhaps that come form plural marriages ancestry) are embarrassed to no end to the point that they simply ignore that it is problematic both when it happened and what has some of it. Their approach is to ignore it unless someone LDS practices it. Then they kick em out.

Teancum

[katherine the great]

So, women who would follow God's commandment are Lesbians, never really formed an attachment to their husbands, are emotionally deficient? What an insulting and really stupid thing to say to excuse one's own imperfections. Those who have engaged in that argument are only trying to make themselves feel better about deliberately chosing to be disobedient.

I have an extremely close relationship with my husband. I would not be unwilling for him to have plural wives, if he were so called to do so. And there would be blessings in a plural marriage that could not be approached in a monogamous marriage. For one thing, the men who were called to take plural wives would obviously be men of a higher caliber than those who were not. I certainly am married to a high caliber man, and if plural marriage would to come about again, he would be called.

Nobody said those things. What I said is that the women I have personally met who have expressed a willingness to embrace polygamy do not form strong attachments (and I certainly don't think they are lesbians.) Why is citing a personal experience so insulting to you?

I think it's great that you are willing to share your husband. Go for it. I'm happy for you. I am not willing to embrace a principal that I do not believe ever was or ever will be commanded by God. I believe that one man and one woman make a complete human being and that monogamy is a superior form of marriage to polygamy.

[KevinG]

We are now back to polygamy was an evil manipulative practice because some women were torn between their own revelations (which are of course just tricks of the mind) their culture (which was of course manipulative) and their freedom.

The same arguments would condemn most faithful Christians (or any religious group) for their marriage vows today.

The discussions I have had with many women who understand, and would be willing to practice polygamy, were not with women who's marriages were not tender and close. In fact those who would be willing because they lacked intimacy would be the last I would ever see succeeding in polygamous relationships. It would take a very well developed sense of intimacy, love, charity and responsibility on the part of both partners to ever succeed in that type of arrangement.

My wifes whole reason for even contemplating setting me up with another woman she felt she would spend the eternities sharing me, is precisely because she loves her children and her husband very much, and wants us taken care of. I have rarely seen a more charitable or loving impulse from a human being. And she is not the type to desire "alone time".

[Nighthawke]

Also, why would BY have to announce that he was letting all the women get out of polygamy, if they were really free to leave in the first place?

Well, I believe that he made that statement during the 1856 reformation period. By then, people were starting to get a bit established and apparently people were starting to waver in their commitment. These kinds of speeches (I think) were designed to get people moving in one direction or the other. The women could obtain a divorce if they wanted and Brigham Young was telling them to hurry up and do so if that is what they really wanted. I'm no fan of his personality, but he usually managed to communicate his points.

"...a bit established"??? Um, perhaps you are not aware that the Saints wore threadbare clothing and were on the verge of starvation at that time. Both monogamous and polygamous families were unable to support their families due to the famine of 1855-6. Of course women were complaining! "No, not a happy day for a year." Hello? They were living in a time of famine, wearing rags, many living in tents with another winter on their doorstep and nonexistent jobs:

eginning in 1855 crop failures (reduced by one-half to two-thirds by grasshoppers and drought) and loss of nearly half the cattle in the disastrous winter of 1856 completely depleted surpluses and quickly reduced the 35,000 settlers to a condition of semi-starvation similar to early 1849.

- Eugene England,

[Who Knows]

..."No, not a happy day for a year." Hello? They were living in a time of famine, wearing rags, many living in tents with another winter on their doorstep and nonexistent jobs...

Except that BY wasn't addressing unhappiness related to those things - he was addressing unhappiness and abuse due to polygamy.

[KevinG]

Before, during and after the Mormon Reformation Brigham Young was willing to give women a divorce. All they had to do was write him a letter.

Perhaps the whole problem is the expectation of the LDS Church that someone should inform us in writing that they no longer accept the covenants that they had previously entered into?

It's a pattern among apostates I've noticed, to complain about harassment and imprisonment, when faced with the agonizing task of putting pencil to paper.

[katherine the great]

"...a bit established"??? Um, perhaps you are not aware that the Saints wore threadbare clothing and were on the verge of starvation at that time. Both monogamous and polygamous families were unable to support their families due to the famine of 1855-6. Of course women were complaining! "No, not a happy day for a year." Hello? They were living in a time of famine, wearing rags, many living in tents with another winter on their doorstep and nonexistent jobs:

Um, I'm completely aware of the circumstances of those times. Those years were hard, yes. My ancestors had arrived in Utah in 1847 and spent the first couple of years in dugouts near pioneer square. By 1850 they had settled in the Payson/Provo area and were farming. They had established wards and some commerce. It was still hand to mouth sometimes yes, but (by their own words) they were "starting to feel established" when they received the call to settle Southern Utah in the spring of 1857. They had been in Utah almost ten years by that point.

[Who Knows]

Before, during and after the Mormon Reformation Brigham Young was willing to give women a divorce. All they had to do was write him a letter.

Perhaps the whole problem is the expectation of the LDS Church that someone should inform us in writing that they no longer accept the covenants that they had previously entered into?

It's a pattern among apostates I've noticed, to complain about harassment and imprisonment, when faced with the agonizing task of putting pencil to paper.

Yeah, shame on those women in polygamous marriages that felt like they were abused, unhappy and couldn't leave their marriages. They could have resigned and left any time they wanted...

[Nighthawke]

..."No, not a happy day for a year." Hello? They were living in a time of famine, wearing rags, many living in tents with another winter on their doorstep and nonexistent jobs...

Except that BY wasn't addressing unhappiness related to those things - he was addressing unhappiness and abuse due to polygamy.

No, Brigham Young was not addressing unhappiness and abuse due to polygamy only. He begins with, "Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy."

I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it.

- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4: 55.

He never qualifies it to plural wives only.

[Who Knows]

No, Brigham Young was not addressing unhappiness and abuse due to polygamy only. He begins with, "Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy."

If you only look at that one sentence, it appears that way. But in the context of the whole discourse that he gave, it is related to polygamy. Read the qoute I posted on the previous page.

Here is the sentence you quoted, followed by the very next sentence:

Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, "My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife;" "No, not a happy day for a year," says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years.

[Nighthawke]

By 1850 they had settled in the Payson/Provo area and were farming. They had established wards and some commerce. It was still hand to mouth sometimes yes, but (by their own words) they were "starting to feel established" when they received the call to settle Southern Utah in the spring of 1857. They had been in Utah almost ten years by that point.

And how profitable was their farming in 1855-56-57? Bumper crops? No dead cattle? No journal entries about having to share their food with those who have none?

On January 27, 1856, President Jedediah M. Grant exhorted the Bishops to take care of the poor and talked about the scarcity of food and lack of employment:

I will here remark that I hope the Bishops in the different wards of the city will see that the poor do not go hungry, that they will keep themselves posted up as to the situation of the poor in their wards, and send round the Teachers and assistants to ascertain the condition of the people. I know that there is not grain enough to feed the people . . . .The winter is cold and the cattle are dying, but ere long the weather will break, the people will get employment, and feel better.

- J.M. Grant, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 3 (1856), 200-201

[katherine the great]

He never qualifies it to plural wives only.

Actually he is specifically speaking of the hardships of plural marriage. He talks about it throughout the sermon. He even ends with this gem:

"Prepare yourselves for two weeks from to morrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the celestial law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from to-morrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining."

[katherine the great]

And how profitable was their farming in 1855-56-57? Bumper crops? No dead cattle? No journal entries about having to share their food with those who have none?

Holy Cow! I didn't say they were "prospering" only that they were beginning to be established.

[Nighthawke]

No, Brigham Young was not addressing unhappiness and abuse due to polygamy only. He begins with, "Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy."

If you only look at that one sentence, it appears that way. But in the context of the whole discourse that he gave, it is related to polygamy. Read the qoute I posted on the previous page.

Here is the sentence you quouted, followed by the very next sentence:

Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, "My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife;" "No, not a happy day for a year," says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years.

I don't need to read a quote which you posted on the previous page, I have Brigham Young's full discourse in front of me. I also clearly posted that Brigham Young began his remarks to the women by saying:

Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy.

...I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it.

... Tell the Gentiles that I will free every woman in this Territory at our next Conference.

- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4: 55.

Brigham Young never qualifies it to 'plural wives only' but is clearly addressing his remarks to all women in the Church.

Also, the quote you provided isn't just one long quote but three separate quotes:

Men will say,

(1) "My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife;"

(2) "No, not a happy day for a year," says one;

(3) and another has not seen a happy day for five years.

Only the first quote references a plural wife, the others do not. And note also that Brigham Young says, "Men will say" not "polygamous men will say."

[charity]

katherine, you weren't the only one I read making disparaging statments about women who would not moan and complain and refuse plural marriage. And to use the argument against anything "I knew this one person once who. . ." is not the best of arguments.

And Brigham's anti-whining speech? Why wouldn't the Prophet counsel people not to whine about the commandments they had accepted? Whining about doing something is almost as bad as not doing it in the first place.

[Who Knows]

Nighthawke - read it however you want - heck people read the bible in a variety of ways. But I think you're wrong - so does KTG.

And the last quote you provided about setting the women free. Who and what is he setting them free from if not their husbands?

[katherine the great]

katherine, you weren't the only one I read making disparaging statments about women who would not moan and complain and refuse plural marriage.

I wasn't even talking about women who would not moan and complain about it. I was specifically talking about women who would enjoy it--maybe even prefer it to a monomous marriage. I believe that personality factored in greatly to who was able to function in plural marriage and who was not. I think there were many more factors than just religious commitment.

[Nighthawke]

Nighthawke - read it however you want - heck people read the bible in a variety of ways. But I think you're wrong - so does KTG.

And the last quote you provided about setting the women free. Who and what is he setting them free from if not their husbands?

Correct -- whether plural or monogamous -- the privilege of being set free was being given to all married sisters in Utah. The women -- both plural and monogamous -- were finding out that life on the frontier wasn't heaven after all.

Thursd 6 [March, 1856] fast day we are to fast all that has enough to eat and give to those that have not.

- Donna Toland Smart, ed. Mormon Midwife: The 1846-1888 Diaries of Patty Bartlett Sessions (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1997), 229.

By the way, how many women requested to be set free two weeks later?

[Teancum]

It seems really easy for someone to  take a princple of the Gospel they would not live if called by God to do so, and then insult those who do. 

Hmmm. First, verdict is out in regards to whether God really ever called anyone to do this. Second, I am not sure who is insulting anyone. Third, I guess since the premise of this thread is what if God really did tell you to do it would you then maybe we can assume that for discussion purposes.

So, if God tells me face to face to take another wife, sure, I might do it. But I would ask Him to appear to my current wife and let her in on it too so she did not want to beat the snot out of me for taking another wife.

But some guy who let stand for 8 years in my Church's book of scripture an article on marriage that promotes monogamy suddenly says that what God commands at one not to do at one time may be ok another I just have trouble with that. It seems to give one man a lot of wiggle room to do whatever he pleases.

Same tactic, different argument:  "I wouldn't pay tithing if God told me to.  And those people who do pay tithing obviously care more about what their bishop thinks than that their children don't have the latest iPod. MYSELF, I am such a good parent, I could never do that to my kid. Only bad parents would pay tithing."

I have never heard anyone make such a nonsensical argument to justify not paying tithing. You must have tired real hard to come up with such and irrelevant bad example.

So, women who would follow God's commandment are Lesbians, never really formed an attachment to their husbands, are emotionally deficient?  What an insulting and really stupid thing to say to excuse one's own imperfections. Those who have engaged in that argument are only trying to make themselves feel better about deliberately chosing to be disobedient.

Huh? Say what?

I have an extremely close relationship with my husband. I would not be unwilling for him to have plural wives, if he were so called to do so. And there would be blessings in a plural marriage that could not be approached in a monogamous marriage. For one thing, the men who were called to take plural wives would obviously be men of a higher caliber than those who were not. I certainly am married to a high caliber man, and if plural marriage would to come about again, he would be called.

I am really happy for you that you have such a great man as a husband and that you would be ok if he practices plural marriage if called by God to do so. However, I highly doubt that caliber of a man has one iota to do with being called or willing to practice plural marriage. There were some pretty scummy fellows who practiced in the day of it being required to be a God. And frankly, the way Joseph proposed to and convinced some women to marry him reflects poorly on his caliber in this arena.

Teancum

[katherine the great]

By the way, how many women requested to be set free two weeks later?

How many women were actually present at the sermon?