Why is polygamy such a hot-button topic?

[alannasaunt]

This is where I think the parallel with multiple children does apply. Not in the depth or type of feelings, but in the respect that the human heart has the capacity to love very deeply and intensely more than one child. It has the capacity to honor more than one parent. Why not the capacity to honor and cherish in a unique way more than one spouse?

Forgive me for not being able to address everything at once. I trying to wrap my mind around small bits of information at a time. Some of this is just me thinking out loud.

I think the difference is that I'm not trying to "meld" in a sense with these other people. Assuming my PM husband could love me uniquely, could I love him back as much? His heart is divided. How could mine not be.

What makes each marriage unique? Not wives (personalities), marriages. I know I would have a different personality from the other wives, but the roles/goals/contributions to the marriages/husband would not be unique. While he would be the whole of my other half, I would only be a fraction of his.

Again, just thinking out loud.

[alannasaunt]

OK..so now I'm thinking....from a 2nd or 3rd wife perspective....How fair is that for them? Why would a woman want to enter into that kind of relationship where they are second in the husband's eyes? I know I wouldn't! It would be miserable.

And this is where I come into the picture...

[Nighthawke]

Here is a quote from "In Sacred Loneliness":

...Annie Clark Tanner wrote of her husband, "When he came to my house, he was more like a guest."

Are you aware that Annie Clark Tanner's father was opposed to her marrying polygamously and that Annie defied her father and chose to marry Joseph Tanner secretly as his second wife? That a few months after her wedding her husband left on a 3 1/2 year mission to Europe and that when he returned from his mission polygamists were being arrested and jailed forcing Annie to live on "the underground." She lived under assumed names and like all other plural wives at that time frequently moved from home to home of trusted relatives and friends. Her father, Ezra Clark, spent six months in the federal penitentiary for "unlawful cohabitation." I'm sure she saw very little of her father during that same period of persecution and prosecution of both men and women who were polygamists at that time.

Thus the title of this book, In Sacred Loneliness. Often plural wives who experienced loneliness also reported feelings of depression, despair, anxiety, helplessness, abandonment, anger, psychosomatic symptoms, and low self-esteem. Certainly polygamous marriage was accepted by nineteenth-century Mormons as thoroughly sacred

[truth dancer]

Then there is the old idea, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Would a man feel great about sharing his wife with other men because she can love them and take care of them and expand her care and comfort to other men who may be single? He could be with her a couple of times a month or so while she shares her time, attention, and love with others. His kids would not have a full time mother since she is busy taking care of other men's children as well.

Just a guess but I don't think most men would go for it!

Or as liz points out, perhaps single women wouldn't want to hurt the first wife? Maybe she would think it MORE holy to remain single than hurt another woman and possibly destroy a beautiful marriage and family?

~dancer~

[charity]

The statement was made that perfection in Eternity would be one man one woman. God did not say that. And I don't think we can assume that.

Two, the favorite wife thing. The woman who would demand it and the man who would accede to such a demand should never be called to live a higher law until they grow up. That is just plain childish. Certainly not living Christ's law to love one another.

I have always felt so sorry for Leah. And not very kindly toward Jacob because of that issue.

Every woman deserves to be loved and cherished. And if my husband has plural wives some day, I would expect him to love us all. Of course, being perfect, he will be able to.

[alannasaunt]

Nighthawke,

I understand that there were external pressures. What I am specifically addressing is the need for some sort of emotional self-protection on the part of plural wives. I believe this would be necessary even without the persecution.

Using Todd Compton's work in one small context does not mean I would apply it to all circumstances.

[liz3564]

Compton's book is biased. Does he bother to inform his readers that Annie Clark Tanner's difficulties were because of the intense persecution of polygamists at that time? Nope. He doesn't bother informing his readers of a lot of stuff. Compton silences the women he writes about by only including quotes that support his bias of these women as lonely, depressed, despairing, anxious, helpless, and so forth.

I haven't had the opportunity to read Compton's book yet. I would like to. I have read the reviews of the book, both pro and con.

From what I understand, according to Compton, himself, he was basically trying to portray a fairly objective view based on the information available to him, and actually honor these women for their sacrifices on behalf of the gospel. He was quite upset that there are so many passages of his book that have been misquoted and taken out of context on anti-Mormon websites like the Tanners'.

[alannasaunt]

The statement was made that perfection in Eternity would be one man one woman.

[liz3564]

The statement was made that perfection in Eternity would be one man one woman. God did not say that. And I don't think we can assume that.

Two, the favorite wife thing. The woman who would demand it and the man who would accede to such a demand should never be called to live a higher law until they grow up. That is just plain childish. Certainly not living Christ's law to love one another.

I have always felt so sorry for Leah. And not very kindly toward Jacob because of that issue.

Every woman deserves to be loved and cherished. And if my husband has plural wives some day, I would expect him to love us all. Of course, being perfect, he will be able to.

First of all, you're kind of taking what I said out of context. My husband made that comment in part to make me feel better. (After 20 years, he does know how to sweet talk me. ). On a deeper level, I think his feelings are more in line with what Dadof7 expressed. His wife was the one he "grew into a man with". She supported him into becoming who he is. No one will ever be able to hold a candle to that in his heart.

I don't think it's childish to desire and enjoy that type of connection. It's not a matter of encouraging the favoritism. It simply "is."

I agree with you on Jacob and Leah. I think Leah definitely got a bum rap.

[Nighthawke]

From what I understand, according to Compton, himself, he was basically trying to portray a fairly objective view based on the information available to him, and actually honor these women for their sacrifices on behalf of the gospel. He was quite upset that there are so many passages of his book that have been misquoted and taken out of context on anti-Mormon websites like the Tanners'.

Then maybe Compton should have included the positive quotes from these women instead of shutting them up and only quoting negative quotes. Only providing the negative was a boon to the critics who hate having to read an entire book in hopes of skimming a few negative quotes, Compton did the skimming for them.

[liz3564]

From what I understand, according to Compton, himself, he was basically trying to portray a fairly objective view based on the information available to him, and actually honor these women for their sacrifices on behalf of the gospel.  He was  quite upset that there are so many passages of his book that have been misquoted and taken out of context on anti-Mormon websites like the Tanners'.

Then maybe Compton should have included the positive quotes from these women instead of shutting them up and only quoting negative quotes. Only providing the negative was a boon to the critics who hate having to read an entire book in hopes of skimming a few negative quotes, Compton did the skimming for them.

Like I said, I didn't read the book. If that's what he did, then I agree with you. He kind of set himself up for misinterpretation.

[Nighthawke]

From what I understand, according to Compton, himself, he was basically trying to portray a fairly objective view based on the information available to him, and actually honor these women for their sacrifices on behalf of the gospel.

[charity]

liz, supposing you were called to live in a plural marriage, and you accepted it, not grudgingly, but as God's will. Would you want your "sister wife" to have to be merely tolerated and not loved?

I agree with part of what you say. My husband and I have been together more than 2/3 our lives. We have had children together. Raised children together. And all that goes with the mortal experience. When/if he has a plural wife, she will not have had that experience with him. But then he won't have had some of the negative memories either. (Well, I wasn't perfect! )

But I hope he will love her and she will feel cherished. A wife, whether she is 2nd, 3rd or 46th, deserves it.

[liz3564]

Actually I hadn't thought of that until you posted your comment. I suppose Compton kind of did set himself up for misinterpretation.

It's kind of a shame, really. If his purpose was, in actuality, to honor these women, then in not obtaining all of the facts, he did them a huge disservice. From some of the statements I've read, he seems sincere in what he was trying to do, which I think is the main reason why the Church hasn't come after him like they have Grant Palmer. His intent was not to discredit the Church. He was just faulty in his research.

[liz3564]

liz, supposing you were called to live in a plural marriage, and you accepted it, not grudgingly, but as God's will. Would you want your "sister wife" to have to be merely tolerated and not loved?

I agree with part of what you say. My husband and I have been together more than 2/3 our lives. We have had children together. Raised children together. And all that goes with the mortal experience. When/if he has a plural wife, she will not have had that experience with him. But then he won't have had some of the negative memories either. (Well, I wasn't perfect! )

But I hope he will love her and she will feel cherished. A wife, whether she is 2nd, 3rd or 46th, deserves it.

But I hope he will love her and she will feel cherished. A wife, whether she is 2nd, 3rd or 46th, deserves it.

Exactly! That's why I have a problem with the whole concept. Every woman deserves to be loved and cherished in that unique way. (apologizing to Dadof7 now for once again recycling the word, "unique"! We've done that a lot this thread! LOL )

How could you be the 46th wife of someone and honestly feel that way? To coin Dadof7's earlier phrase, that's what I have a hard time "wrapping my mind around".

And yet, as I mentioned earlier in the thread with the experience involving my deceased friend....I know Ty well enough to know that he wouldn't have taken a second wife if he felt that Barbi wouldn't be ok with it. He had to have had some kind of confirmation that she was at peace with it.

It comes down to faith and trust in the Lord. In the basest sense, I know this.

But it still doesn't prevent me from wanting to understand it on a level I can accept. Does that make any sense at all?

[Nighthawke]

Actually I hadn't thought of that until you posted your comment. I suppose Compton kind of did set himself up for misinterpretation.

It's kind of a shame, really. If his purpose was, in actuality, to honor these women, then in not obtaining all of the facts, he did them a huge disservice. From some of the statements I've read, he seems sincere in what he was trying to do, which I think is the main reason why the Church hasn't come after him like they have Grant Palmer. His intent was not to discredit the Church. He was just faulty in his research.

No, I don't believe he was faulty in his research at all. He was however faulty in his writing of this book by not giving readers the whole picture. He should have left his enmity of polygamy at the door. I want all the information so I can make up my own mind not have Compton sift the information so that I'll arrive at the same conclusion he did.

[alannasaunt]

OK..so now I'm thinking....from a 2nd or 3rd wife perspective....How fair is that for them?  Why would a woman want to enter into that kind of relationship where they are second in the husband's eyes?  I know I wouldn't!  It would be miserable.

And this is where I come into the picture...

I don't see how subsequent wives couldn't feel a void, when looking at the first wife's history. The other marriages would always feel inferior.

[liz3564]

No, I don't believe he was faulty in his research at all. He was however faulty in his writing of this book by not giving readers the whole picture. He should have left his enmity of polygamy at the door. I want all the information so I can make up my own mind not have Compton sift the information so that I'll arrive at the same conclusion he did.

OK, Nighthawke....Now I'm torn at NOT wanting to read the book because it's obvious he's purposely slanting the information to support his own bias, and wanting to read the book for curiosity's sake! LOL

I'm actually leaning toward not bothering to read it because unless it is clearly stated that there is a bias, it's not right to appear to be objective when you're not.

[liz3564]

OK..so now I'm thinking....from a 2nd or 3rd wife perspective....How fair is that for them?

[alannasaunt]

No, I don't believe he was faulty in his research at all. He was however faulty in his writing of this book by not giving readers the whole picture. He should have left his enmity of polygamy at the door. I want all the information so I can make up my own mind not have Compton sift the information so that I'll arrive at the same conclusion he did.

OK, Nighthawke....Now I'm torn at NOT wanting to read the book because it's obvious he's purposely slanting the information to support his own bias, and wanting to read the book for curiosity's sake! LOL

I'm actually leaning toward not bothering to read it because unless it is clearly stated that there is a bias, it's not right to appear to be objective when you're not.

I haven't read the entire book, either.

What about reading the book, knowing there's a bias, whether intentional or not. Then gleaning what you can from the material. Unless he just fabricated the quotes, there is still truth to be found.

It may not give the whole picture, but could still provide pieces to the puzzle.

[liz3564]

What about reading the book, knowing there's a bias, whether intentional or not. Then gleaning what you can from the material. Unless he just fabricated the quotes, there is still truth to be found.

True...

If we're going to do that, though, I think we should also read some books which are bias in the other direction as well.

Nighthawke mentioned a few good ones earlier in the thread.

[alannasaunt]

What about reading the book, knowing there's a bias, whether intentional or not. Then gleaning what you can from the material. Unless he just fabricated the quotes, there is still truth to be found.

True...

If we're going to do that, though, I think we should also read some books which are bias in the other direction as well.

Nighthawke mentioned a few good ones earlier in the thread.

Agreed.

I think I would take both sides with a grain of salt and look for the real truth somewhere in the middle.

[charity]

I think for all of you struggling with the idea of plural marriage, you are only showing why it would be a higher law. And where there is a higher law, there are abundant blessings not available to those who do not live it. To have to struggle and overcome the small petty jealousies that are not our best selves, to learn to be selfless and loving, to put someone else's happiness above our own, aren't these the kinds of experiences we are supposed to have in mortality to fit us for godhood?

I remember one account of a woman in Nauvoo who found a sister crying in the Nauvoo Temple. When she inquired she found that the sister was alone, not married, and terrified of not being able to make her way. The woman was so moved at the sister's plight that she offered her husband to marry her. She went home and got him, and he married the sister that day. I think that woman cinched her place in the Celestial Kingdom.

And I would just say, that I think those of you who have concerns would be able to do it. If you were ever called to.

[beastie]

Regarding celestial polyandry, and the biological aspect - (and I do have to admit I haven't had time to keep up with this thread, so maybe someone brought this up and I missed it)

Some of you are making the assumption that reproduction will take place in the CK the way it does here - why?

And if reproduction takes place some other way (and surely it must be different in SOME way to produce a "spirit child" instead of a flesh and blood child), then all this discussion of biology making polyandry unrealistic is unfounded.

[beastie]

I remember one account of a woman in Nauvoo who found a sister crying in the Nauvoo Temple. When she inquired she found that the sister was alone, not married, and terrified of not being able to make her way. The woman was so moved at the sister's plight that she offered her husband to marry her. She went home and got him, and he married the sister that day. I think that woman cinched her place in the Celestial Kingdom.

Why couldn't they just take her along and help take care of her? Why did marriage have to be part of the deal? I've never understood this argument in terms of "taking care of orphans and widows". I always thought the church was built on the principle of helping to take care of those who are needy, anyway. So would marriage have to be part of the "bargain"? Were early mormons really NOT going to help the needy unless they married the needy person?

(and, btw, this really sounds like a "pity marriage", which is part of what I object to in all this discussion about men just bucking up and doing their duty to God, not that they really WANT another wife, but they will grit their teeth and do it. What a horrible situation for the plural wife.)