Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A View Into Utah Polygamy - Ida Hunt Udall


John Corrill

Recommended Posts

Ann Eliza Young's writing in Wife #19 was pretty illuminating on the nature of polygamous life in Utah.

Even Brigham Young saw fit address the "whinings" of the polygamous wives on more than one occasion. If one is trying to make an argument that all was well in polygamous Zion, why was the Prophet constantly trying to address the challenges of that lifestyle?

A few years ago one of my wives, when talking about wives leaving their husbands said, 'I wish my husband's wives would leave him, every soul of them except myself.' That is the way they all feel, more or less, at times, both old and young." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.195)
    "Sisters, do you wish to make yourselves happy? Then what is your duty? It is for you to bear children,...are you tormenting yourselves by thinking that your husbands do not love you? I would not care whether they loved a particle or not; but I would cry out, like one of old, in the joy of my heart, 'I have got a man from the Lord!" 'Hallelujah! I am a mother--..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.37)
"And we have women here who like any thing but the celestial law of God; and if they could break asunder the cable of the Church of Christ, there is scarcely a mother in Israel but would do it this day. And they talk it to their husbands, to their daughters, and to their neighbors, and say they have not seen a week's happiness since they became acquainted with that law [plural marriage], or since their husbands took a second wife. ...(Journal of Discourses, vol.4, pp.49-51)
"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. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the liberty they Ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men, together with their own folly.

    "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. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, Now go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. 'What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate you all.

    "I know what my women will say; they will say, 'You can have as many women as you please, Brigham.' But I want to go somewhere and do something to get rid of the whiners; I do not want them to receive a part of the truth and spurn the rest out of doors.

    "I wish my women, and brother Kimball's and brother Grant's to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel

Link to comment
Even Brigham Young saw fit address the "whinings" of the polygamous wives on more than one occasion. If one is trying to make an argument that all was well in polygamous Zion, why was the Prophet constantly trying to address the challenges of that lifestyle?

Probably for the same reason that the prophets periodicallly address the challenges in the monogamous lifestyle. Marriage is difficult, and some people have success while others really crash and burn. It happens in "regular" marriages; why should we be surprised that it happened in polygamous marriages (and that it was addressed by leaders)?

Froggie said: I must confess I have a difficult time understanding why there are those who actually defend this lifestyle, or what motivation they may have.  But that may be the feminist in me talking.

My only defense of polygamy comes in when it is mischaracterized as somehow inherently "worse" than monogamy. I don't think a coherent case can be made for polygamy being worse than monogamy, or vice versa, providing healthy relationships in each are being examined.

No motivation, other than a quest for intellectual honesty. :P

-Allen

Link to comment

Ref: If anyone could provide a more reasonable answer for the notable exclusion of these women [from church manuals], other than the Church's embarrassment and/or avoidance of this past practice, I would love to hear it.

Everyone Else: [silence]

Ref: Otherwise, I think John has a very good, logical and church validated position!!!

John Corrill: I couldn't agree more <_<

Slacktime: I...I....I...I...I...I...I...

John Corrill: It's becoming clear why some people cannot see the hurt, neglect and abuse that is polygamy.

Grego: John happened upon finding one relationship where the people weren't doing very well, I can be sure that this was typical of all... [i need], a lot more documentation than that.

John Corrill: Well, perhaps you oughta get yourself down to the library and crack open some books. I've read 3 or 4 dozen biographies of women in polygamy - and over and over and over again, it's the same story: neglect, abuse and heartbreak. I keep hearing that all this is the exception, but I have yet to find a plural marriage that was happy and fulfilling; that someone dreamed about becoming a plural wife one day and writes poetry about it, etc, etc, etc.

Awyatt: Perhaps you could address, John, what makes polygamy intrinsicly worse than monogamy when it comes to the participants involved.

USU78: My point exactly, which our friend flat out refuses to address.

John Corrill: I don't flat out refuse to do this. It's what I have been doing my whole stellar FAIR Board career :P

Polygamy inherently neglects the normal needs and desires of women and children. The beautiful emotions of love, interpersonal intimacy, attention and companionship *have* to be snuffed out in order to endure polygamy. This dynamic is not due to the random, neglectful polygamist husband. It is an intrinsic function of the polygamist relationship.

But the women who lived polygamy can explain this better than me. These are faithful LDS early Utah women who ACTUALLY lived polygamy and whose husbands were admired and repected leaders of the church:

A successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy.  (Zion Jacobs Smith Young, New York World, 1869)

[six months after the wedding, my husbands] visits were not often, as his attentions now were on another young lady, Miss Josephine Snow.  I had not seen the third wife, but I did wonder wherein I lacked that so soon he should take another wife.

Link to comment

I have more than casual interest in this discussion because I am a descendant of David King Udall Sr. and his first wife Ella.

David and all three of his wives (he had a post manifesto marriage to a widow that was later unwound by JFS, but he was required to continue to provide for her and her children - all from her first marriage), were dead long before I was born. However, I was able to hear directly from many of their children through both wives as they discussed their parents.

It was universally agreed that although Ella (the 1st wife) had emotional difficulty when David married Ida, she was always 100% spiritually and intellectually in support of the marriage. David met Ida through Ella, because Ella and Ida were best friends before the plural marriage. It did not take Ella long to fully and emotionally accept the marriage, and Ida and Ella were truly sisters. They lived in adjoining houses, until Ida had to flee in fear of the federal marshals. Upon Ida's death, Ella raised many of Ida's still young children. My grandfather loved his Aunt Ida almost as much as his own mother.

The fact that plural wives often had to separate from their husbands was not by choice. A number of my ancestors were the plural wife who had to hide from the marshals. These women were not only faithful to their husbands and church, but they were educated, self supporting, hard charging women.

My grandfathers recollections were almost as if he had two mothers, and he never had a negative thing to say about their polygamous relationship. However, he did resent the 3rd marriage which he both considered to have been forced upon his father by several apostles and he considered somewhat lustful. He never had any emotional connection to that wife as she was never located near the family. However, he did employ several of the 3rd wife's children from her first marriage. I think it is fair to say that post manifesto marriages were never easy. The book written by David and Ida's daughter Pearl (with his help), http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/branches/...n/contents.html, never mentions the 3rd wife (it is as if that marriage never happened). As a trustee of the book rights, my grandfather would never vote to allow a subsequent edition, because he felt that David's posterity might have been better served with seeing a more complete picture of David.

David was never a financial success. However, he excelled in serving the Lord as a Bishop, Stake President, 1st President of the Arizona Temple, and Patriarch. Additionally, several of his sons served as Arizona Supreme Court Justices, grandsons served in Congress and in the Cabinet, and today two great grandsons are Congressmen and one is a Senator.

It would probably appall David, Ella and Ida that their lives might be used to attack polygamy and the LDS church. These people had great love for each other, their children and their faith.

Link to comment
I must confess I have a difficult time understanding why there are those who actually defend this lifestyle, or what motivation they may have. But that may be the feminist in me talking.

Don't you find it interesting that Ann Eliza Young continued to use Brigham's last name even after their divorce. I don't want to speak to her motives, but obviously she did not discourage the attention that Brigham's surname brought to her.

Link to comment
Ref: If anyone could provide a more reasonable answer for the notable exclusion of these women [from church manuals], other than the Church's embarrassment and/or avoidance of this past practice, I would love to hear it.

Everyone Else: [silence]

Perhaps it was painfully self evident that the Church is not in the business of publishing texts of the collected misgivings of the Saints from the establishment of the dispensation until now, for the purpose of hand wringing and fretting in Sunday School or for apostates to gleefully chatter over.

I've got some misgivings and hardships in my journals as well. If anyone ever uses them to dis my spouse, my prophet or my faith and I have anything to do with it, I'd (comment self-moderated to keep the board PG) :P

Link to comment

Hi Allen,

My only defense of polygamy comes in when it is mischaracterized as somehow inherently "worse" than monogamy. I don't think a coherent case can be made for polygamy being worse than monogamy, or vice versa, providing healthy relationships in each are being examined.

You are right!!!

Ok.. here ya go.

Polygamy is only worse for those women who do not enjoy the idea of their husbands sleeping with other women.

Polygamy is only worse for those women who believe in equality.

Polygamy is only worse for those women who value/cherish an exclusive, intimate partnership.

Polygamy is only worse for those women who do not like the idea of their husband's intimate love, attention, care, tenderness, being shared with other women.

Polygamy is only worse for those women who enjoy the deep intimacy and emotional connection that is available with exclusivity.

Polygamy is only worse for those women who feel polygamy is a retreat to a more primitive form of mating.

For all the rest of the women, polygamy is better! :angry:<_<:P

For women who like the idea of sharing their husbands, polygamy is better.

For women who don't like sex, polygamy is better.

For women who don't like their husbands, polygamy is better.

For women who only want a man as a sperm donor, polygamy is better.

For women who do not like intimacy with a male, polygamy is better.

:unsure:

I would say that there are very significant reasons why humans have evolved to exist as monogamous couples (serially though it may be) for the past seven million years. IMO, it speaks to an evolved species, an enlightened consciousness, and a deepening of the human experience.

However, it is very true that there are those throughout the world who enjoy all sorts of different/unusual/alternative mating ideas.

So again, you are correct. Polygamy is only worse for those who think the specifics of monogamy are preferable.

:ph34r:

~dancer~

Link to comment
Ref:  If anyone could provide a more reasonable answer for the notable exclusion of these women [from church manuals], other than the Church's embarrassment and/or avoidance of this past practice, I would love to hear it.

Everyone Else:  [silence]

Ref:  Otherwise, I think John has a very good, logical and church validated position!!!

Sorry about the silence, John. I was going to respond earlier, but it takes time to look at what one is asked to look at. Had you taken the time to look at the link that Ref provided, you would find that he didn't really have a point. The site provides very, very short bios of each president of the Church. Of those who practiced polygamy (up through Heber Grant), there is only one marriage/wife listed for one prophet: Joseph Smith. None of the rest have any of their marriages listed, so while it may appear that the Church doesn't trumpet that they were polygamists, it also doesn't even say they were married.

Gasp! The Church must be rewriting history! :P

John C. said: Well, perhaps you oughta get yourself down to the library and crack open some books.  I've read 3 or 4 dozen biographies of women in polygamy - and  over and over and over again, it's the same story: neglect, abuse and heartbreak. I keep hearing that all this is the exception, but I have yet to find a plural marriage that was happy and fulfilling; that someone dreamed about becoming a plural wife one day and writes poetry about it, etc, etc, etc.

I think that one sees what one wants to see. You see "neglect" where there is, perhaps, none. Does missing your husband when he is gone signal neglect? Yet, that is the level that it seems you believe constitutes neglect.

Please don't get me wrong--I am not saying that neglect, abuse, and heartbreak didn't exist in polygamous marriages. But there are two problems. First, John extrapolates that this must have been the case in all polygamous unions. That is an awfully broad brush to paint thousands of marriages with. Second, John fails to paint monogamous marriages with the same brush. Is monogamy evil because of the abuses of a few? No; such a stance makes reason stare, yet it is the same stance adopted by John relative to polygamy.

John C. said: Awyatt:  Perhaps you could address, John, what makes polygamy intrinsicly worse than monogamy when it comes to the participants involved.

USU78:  My point exactly, which our friend flat out refuses to address.

John Corrill:  I don't flat out refuse to do this.  It's what I have been doing my whole stellar FAIR Board career <_<

Polygamy inherently neglects the normal needs and desires of women and children.  The beautiful emotions of love, interpersonal intimacy, attention and companionship *have* to be snuffed out in order to endure polygamy.  This dynamic is not due to the random, neglectful polygamist husband.  It is an intrinsic function of the polygamist relationship.

Inherently neglects? Do you know what "inherent" means, John? You are saying that neglect is such an intrinsic part of polygamy that without the neglect, the relationship would cease to be polygamy because polygamy cannot exist without the neglect.

Is that what you really meant to say? I don't think it is, because such a stance would be absurd.

John C. said: But the women who lived polygamy can explain this better than me.  These are faithful LDS early Utah women who ACTUALLY lived polygamy and whose husbands were admired and repected leaders of the church:

Nice cherry picking. Did you add to your cache the quotes provided by Nighthawke and others where the women (some of the same ones you quoted) actually stuck up for polygamy and said that it was desirable? Where's your balance, John?

I'll give you one for-instance. You quote Annie Clark Tanner, as follows:

[six months after the wedding, my husbands] visits were not often, as his attentions now were on another young lady, Miss Josephine Snow.  I had not seen the third wife, but I did wonder wherein I lacked that so soon he should take another wife.
Link to comment
So again, you are correct. Polygamy is only worse for those who think the specifics of monogamy are preferable.

I agree with you. Polygamy is worse for those individuals who prefer monogamy. I've said nothing that discounts personal preference. I know that many others, including John C., abhor polygamy. That is their preference, but their preference doesn't mean that they are correct. Just because I don't like brussels sprouts doesn't mean that they are inherently inferior to cabbage, for instance. It is an individual taste.

How do you account for those who do have successful lives in polygamous relationships?

-Allen

Link to comment

Cougarfan: Ella (the 1st wife) had emotional difficulty when David married Ida, she was always 100% spiritually and intellectually in support of the marriage...

John Corrill: Hi Cougarfan. Thanks for chiming in. Yes, this is exactly my concern with polygamy. People felt it was a spiritual requirement, but it failed to provide emotionally.

Cougarfan: ...he did resent the 3rd marriage which he both considered to have been forced upon his father by several apostles and he considered somewhat lustful. He never had any emotional connection to that wife as she was never located near the family.

John Corrill: Yes, polygamy was forced upon alot of unwilling people by the leaders of the church. It's kinda sad that so many felt they needed to give in to the leaders of the church.

Dadof7: I've got some misgivings and hardships in my journals as well. If anyone ever uses them to dis my spouse, my prophet or my faith and I have anything to do with it, I'd (comment self-moderated to keep the board PG)

John Corrill: Good self-restraint there Dadof7. Violence is not a pretty thing.

Awyatt: How do you account for those who do have successful lives in polygamous relationships?

John Corrill: I have yet to see one. I agree with Annie Clark Tanner that the overwhelming majority ended up broken.

Awyatt: Had you taken the time to look at the link that Ref provided, you would find that he didn't really have a point

John Corrill: I'm well aware of how the church has scrubbed the plural wives from the present day publications.

Awyatt: First, John extrapolates that this must have been the case in all polygamous unions.

John Corrill: No, this is Annie Clark Tanners assesment - that the overwhelming majority were "broken"

Awyatt: Inherently neglects? Do you know what "inherent" means, John? You are saying that neglect is such an intrinsic part of polygamy that without the neglect, the relationship would cease to be polygamy because polygamy cannot exist without the neglect.

John Corrill: I'm saying that without polygamy, the emotional and financial isolation and neglect of women and children that happens as a result of polygamy in the "overwhelming majority" (Annie Clark Tanners words) of plural marriages would not happen.

Awyatt: Did you add to your cache the quotes provided by Nighthawke and others where the women (some of the same ones you quoted) actually stuck up for polygamy and said that it was desirable? Where's your balance, John? I'll give you one for-instance. You quote Annie Clark Tanner, as follows:

John Corrill: Annie Clark Tanner didn't stick up for polygamy. What she did do was make an observation about how women practicing polygamy felt. ("It is often remarked...the women of the Church living this principle felt...They felt...the women of Utah feel...the women felt...")

She later gave her own personal view of polygamy, which I posted in a previous post - mainly that the "ovewhelming majority" of plural marriages ended "broken" and that the wife and children were emotinally and finanically neglected.

Awyatt: And yet, here is John C. trying to tell them that they did, indeed, have an inferior position. Annie seems to find value in polygamy...

John Corrill: Actually, it was Annie Clark Tanners observation that inherent in polygamy was the view that women were "inferior". Please see my previous post.

Awyatt: First, you may want to update the reference. It is actually on page xix.

John Corrill: Wow, this is pretty picky. The book was published in several printings. Perhaps you have a different one than me, as my page number is correct.

Link to comment
Ref:  If anyone could provide a more reasonable answer for the notable exclusion of these women [from church manuals], other than the Church's embarrassment and/or avoidance of this past practice, I would love to hear it.

John Corrill:  Everyone Else:  [silence]

Ref:  Otherwise, I think John has a very good, logical and church validated position!!!

Awyatt: Sorry about the silence, John. I was going to respond earlier, but it takes time to look at what one is asked to look at. Had you taken the time to look at the link that Ref provided, you would find that he didn't really have a point. The site provides very, very short bios of each president of the Church. Of those who practiced polygamy (up through Heber Grant), there is only one marriage/wife listed for one prophet: Joseph Smith. None of the rest have any of their marriages listed, so while it may appear that the Church doesn't trumpet that they were polygamists, it also doesn't even say they were married.

Awyatt,

Thanks for confirming the very point I was making, but I think it was already quite obvious and accurately summarized in my first post. However, the question remains avoided, much in the way the respect for these polygamous wives has been in this website, by the very church claiming such a practice was honorable and commanded by God. Your response didn't address the question, but merely attempted to add an irrelevant, but already obvious, fact.

So again, if you or anyone else could reasonably answer or opine upon:

Why exclude the polygamous marriages of past prophets on the very site that monogamous marriages are reflected as "Significant Events"? Why not show the same respect and honor for polygamous wives? How can one conclude anything BUT that the chuch perfers to avoid/distance themselves from this past practice with the disrespect it shows for these women on the same website it honors those of monogamous marriages? Why the distinction?

Any "reasonable" explanations?

Anyone?

I think Mr. Corrill makes a very accurate and "Church validated " point!

Link to comment
You are right!!!

Ok.. here ya go.

Polygamy is only worse for those women who do not enjoy the idea of their husbands sleeping with other women.

It is interesting to me that those most incensed by how other people choose to live their lives have to change the topic instead of addressing what was said. Your list of red herrings is nonresponsive to what Allen said....and most of them discount marriage itself. The idea that monogamy is a remedy for sleeping around is ludicrous.

I'm no defender of polygamy. But I am a defender of women being able to choose their own lifestyle without you butting in with your disdain. Divorce was so easy that Utah became the Las Vegas destination of the West and polygamy was not practiced by the majority so perhaps it is time to mind your own business and allow others to make their own decisions.

Link to comment
Why exclude the polygamous marriages of past prophets on the very site that monogamous marriages are reflected as "Significant Events"?  Why not show the same respect and honor for polygamous wives?  How can one conclude anything BUT that the chuch perfers to avoid/distance themselves from this past practice with the disrespect it shows for these women on the same website it honors those of monogamous marriages?  Why the distinction?

Any "reasonable" explanations?

Anyone?

There is no such thing as a reasonable response for those dedicated to haranguing other people's beliefs. That is why there is the continual goading no matter what response is given. So let's go through it again. Let's see....why...hmmmm.....

It is a no-win proposition. If it discussed the countermos are waiting in the wings to jump on anything that is said, if it isn't the countermos are waiting in the wings to jump on everything that isn't said.

The church currently denounces polygamy. There would be little incentive to try to talk about it. (See above).

The "disrespect" factor is an interesting spin. To discuss any of this would bring an avalanche of what we see said about these women who can't defend themselves everyday...disdain, disgust, pity, revulsion, moralizing, name calling.....

Helen Mar Kimball, Woman's Exponent 1 December 1881

If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites.

But...why take on a crusade of something meaningful for today when you can demean dead women who can't talk back?

Link to comment
Cougarfan: Ella (the 1st wife) had emotional difficulty when David married Ida, she was always 100% spiritually and intellectually in support of the marriage...

John Corrill: Hi Cougarfan. Thanks for chiming in. Yes, this is exactly my concern with polygamy. People felt it was a spiritual requirement, but it failed to provide emotionally.

Thanks for quoting out of context. After a transition period, Ella and Ida were sisters in every sense of the word.

Link to comment
The idea that monogamy is a remedy for sleeping around is ludicrous.

Really, I am of the opinion that monogomy is the best remedy available for sleeping around. Its not perfect, but its the best we got, short of chastity belts.

J:  But...why take on a crusade of something meaningful for today when you can demean dead women who can't talk back?

Actually, I see a great a deal of sympathy being expressed for these dead women. Its the instution of polygamy that they are demeaning.

BTW, I agree with you, that adults who want to enter into polygamous relationship should be allowed to do so. Its their life. THere is no law preventing women from marrying men who are drug addicts, or serving time in prison, why then should the law prevent them from marrying religious zealots who believe its God's will that they take on multiple spouses.

I am curious, Julianne if you feel the same about gay marriages?

Link to comment
John Corrill: Yes, polygamy was forced upon alot of unwilling people by the leaders of the church. It's kinda sad that so many felt they needed to give in to the leaders of the church.

Its "kinda sad" that you feel so forced to be a product of your culture that you come up with such feel good platitudes as a failure to "provide emotionally". What I find revolting in every sense is the demand that these women jump from the frying pan into the fire to appease the people who stick their noses into their bedroom windows and salivate about their sex lives.

Yes...this is ever so much better for these dead and dumb women...you tell 'em where they really belong, John! No decision making for these women when they have your superior morals and judgement!

The abolitionist Antoinette Brown objected in 1853,
Link to comment
Really, I am of the opinion that monogomy is the best remedy available for sleeping around. Its not perfect, but its the best we got, short of chastity belts.

What are the rates of real monogamy in today's marriages? Don't forget to count the divorce and remarriage rate as well as the ongoing adultery rate. Let's drop the platitudes and use data.

Actually, I see a great a deal of sympathy being expressed for these dead women.  Its the instution of polygamy that they are demeaning.

Right. There is nothing insulting at all in telling a woman that her life choice is immoral, revolting, disgusting and deserving of nothing but pity. Nothing demeaning or personal there!

I am curious, Julianne if you feel the same about gay marriages?

This is a thread on polygamy but nice try. However, I am curious too...according to you it is not demeaning to tell gay people that it is just the "institution" of homosexuality that is disgusting...it is nothing demeaning about them. Try that out on a couple and let us know how it goes.

Link to comment
There is no such thing as a reasonable response for those dedicated to haranguing other people's beliefs. That is why there is the continual goading no matter what response is given. So let's go through it again. Let's see....why...hmmmm.....

Who is "haranguing" others peoples beliefs? I thought the lds church no longer believes in this practice? I have asked a simple question about a disclosure distinction with respect to two types of marriages made by the lds church on their own website.

It is a no-win proposition. If it discussed the countermos are waiting in the wings to jump on anything that is said, if it isn't the countermos are waiting in the wings to jump on anything that is said.

Kind of the nature of all things, to the extent allowed, discussed on this board. But not relevant to my question.

The church currently denounces polygamy. There would be little incentive to try to talk about it. (See above).

How is listing the marriage, as has been done for the monogamous wives, a discussion of "polygamy"? They do not discuss "monogamy" on this site either. While I recognize the Lds church has denounced polygamy, has it denounced the marriages of those who entered into it when it was supposedly commanded by God? I don't see the relevance of this response at all!

The "disrespect" factor is an interesting spin. To discuss any of this would bring an avalanche of what we see said about these women who can't defend themselves everyday...disdain, disgust, pity, revulsion, moralizing, name calling.....

If it is not disrespect, what is it? An "oversight"? Again, I did not ask why "polygamy was not discussed" at this sight. I asked "why not show the same recognition, respect and honor for the polygamous marriages of past prophets as they do for monogamous marriages".

The distinction in disclosure is so obvious that one can only conclude it was done intentionally by the Lds church in its own website. If such marriages and practice were honorable and commanded by God, why not be consistent in disclosure and show the same respect for these women?

OK, so I got an "emotional" answer. But for reasons elaborated, I don't see it as a "reasonable" answer!

Any reasonable answers?

Link to comment
OK, so I got an "emotional" answer. But for reasons elaborated, I don't see it as a "reasonable" answer!

Any reasonable answers?

You just proved my point. It does not matter what anyone says. In your mind there is no reasonable answer....you will just assign it to "emotion" which is rather ironic considering we have a countermopologist complaining that not honoring emotion is a crime against women. :P

What reason do you want? If the church not wanting to bring up polygamy because it is a no-win proposition isnt' good enough....

1. They are hiding it!

2. They are evil and designing men!

3. They hate women!

4. They forgot about it!

5. It was a printer error!

6. They live to deceive!

Better?

Link to comment
The distinction in disclosure is so obvious that one can only conclude it was done intentionally by the Lds church in its own website. If such marriages and practice were honorable and commanded by God, why not be consistent in disclosure and show the same respect for these women?

OK, so I got an "emotional" answer. But for reasons elaborated, I don't see it as a "reasonable" answer!

Any reasonable answers?

There is a very simple answer, and it is non-emotional, but whether you will aceept it as reasonable or not remains to be seen: Historians need to be selective in what they present, and some historian responsible for this particular Web site, chose to include wives for only a limited number of the prophets.

Are you asking folks here to read minds and tell you why this particular historian did this? Sorry; can't help you. But you might try contacting the Church's archives and see if you can get a response there.

-Allen

Link to comment
If the church not wanting to bring up polygamy because it is a no-win proposition isnt' good enough....

Juliann,

You make little sense here. What makes listing the the wives of polygamous prophets a "no win proposition"? It is a factual, historical event, no different than the monogamous marriages of prophets practicing monogamy!

I am asking "why the distinction" within the website. If you don't believe the current lds church is embarrassed about this past practice, or wants to distance/avoid its association with it today, give me your opinion or explanation as to why these women are not shown the same respect as monogamous wives are on this lds church website!

Emotions aside, of course!

Link to comment
There is a very simple answer, and it is non-emotional, but whether you will aceept it as reasonable or not remains to be seen: Historians need to be selective in what they present, and some historian responsible for this particular Web site, chose to include wives for only a limited number of the prophets.

Awyatt,

The disclosures of marriages as "Significant Events" in the bios of past presdients begins with George Albert Smith Jr., the first LDS Prophet to practice "monogamy only" as a way of marriage.

Are you asking me, or any other "reasonable" person, to beleive that this "cut-off" for disclosing the marriages as "Significant Events" was an "arbitrary" cut off! Are you suggesting that the fact that all other past presidents before George Albert don't have their marriages recognized as "Significant Events" was in no way impacted, by those creating this site, by the fact that they were polygamous marriages??? Are you really (come on now, I mean with a straight face and everything!!!)?

Link to comment
Awyatt: Did you add to your cache the quotes provided by Nighthawke and others where the women (some of the same ones you quoted) actually stuck up for polygamy and said that it was desirable? Where's your balance, John? I'll give you one for-instance. You quote Annie Clark Tanner, as follows:

John Corrill: Annie Clark Tanner didn't stick up for polygamy. What she did do was make an observation about how women practicing polygamy felt. ("It is often remarked...the women of the Church living this principle felt...They felt...the women of Utah feel...the women felt...")

She later gave her own personal view of polygamy, which I posted in a previous post - mainly that the "ovewhelming majority" of plural marriages ended "broken" and that the wife and children were emotinally and finanically neglected.

And yet you miss the point. The point is your lack of balance in this issue. I showed you where, despite Annie's later feelings concerning polygamy vs. monogamy, she was still able to see some good in the practice. You, on the other hand, can see none. Zero. Nada. Zilch. There is nothing good in, from, or through polygamy, according to all your posts on the subject on this board.

Balance, John. Annie had some; you have none. That is the point.

-Allen

Link to comment
Are you asking me, or any other "reasonable" person, to beleive that this "cut-off" for disclosing the marriages as "Significant Events" was an "arbitrary" cut off! Are you suggesting that the fact that all other past presidents before George Albert don't have their marriages recognized as "Significant Events" was in no way impacted, by those creating this site, by the fact that they were polygamous marriages??? Are you really (come on now, I mean with a straight face and everything!!!)?

Nope, I'm not asking you to do anything, other than to stop asking people who don't have a definitive answer (myself included) and go to the source. Is that unreasonable?

-Allen

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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