Nighthawke Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I just wanted to post a couple of remarks that are relevant to John Corrill's last polygamy thread.It is important to realize that when one reads journal entries and biographies of women who were plural wives that one be aware of the historical context. The American antipolygamy crusade lasted well over ten years and even into the early 1890s. Even if the husbands wanted to be equal with their plural wives it was illegal for them to do so. They could not acknowledge in any way a plural wife, no dinners together, no visits, no support, et cetera. It was illegal. And those who did attempt it ended up incarcerated (along with a few plural wives who tried to protect them.)For some, like Annie Clark Tanner and Ida Hunt Udall, not only did they have to hide from federal agents in order to protect their husband and sister-wives but they also had to hide to protect their father, mother and "aunts." Annie Clark Tanner, for example, was subpoenaed in 1886 after a raid in Farmington, Utah, not to testify against her husband, Joseph Marion Tanner, but to testify against her father.This abuse by federal agents continued even after the Manifesto. Joseph Marion Tanner had to resign as president of the Utah Agricultural College (today's Utah State University) because he was a polygamist. His options were to 'divorce' his plural wives and retain his position or to resign his position and move to either Canada or Mexico with his families--he resigned and moved to Alberta. Not everyone made that decision, and by then the harm had already been done. Some wives chose to remain in the U.S. and not accompany their husbands.It is faulty to base one's conclusions about whether or not polygamy works on the American example. You need to look at the Canadian and Mexican examples where, although the practice was illegal, it was tolerated. This is where you will find stable and happy LDS plural families who weren't blasted apart and harrassed by federal agents. Families like that of Camilla Eyring for example, who later became the wife of Spencer W. Kimball, left the U.S. for Mexico.There was another Mormon exodus after the migration to Utah. It was the exodus of Mormon plural families leaving the United States. The other thing I hear people like John Corrill saying is that they don't object to consenting adults practicing polygamy but then as soon as an intelligent adult woman chooses to enter a plural marriage she all of a sudden becomes a brainwashed victim somehow. Know also that those whom some here labelled as awful, neglectful, cruel husbands later, after the Manifesto, became judges, lawyers, newpaper editors, apostles, et cetera... in other words, respected men of daily society. How is that possible? These 'horrid' men who only a few years previous were all found in Utah jails at one time or another, some jailed and fined more than once, for unlawful cohabitation. So which is it? Were these men really awful, neglectful and cruel and just all of a sudden became loving, respectable and upright citizens after the Manifesto? Or perhaps they were loving, respectable and upright citizens all along? Link to comment
Deborah Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 It is very disturbing that all the "morally" uptight, oops upright, people today condemn something based on their own limited understanding and in the limited purview of modern society. What's ironic is the immorality of the current society, as was pointed out on another thread. People who live in a modern day Soddom and Gommorah without flinching an eye have the nerve to judge a hard-working and courageous people who suffered all kinds of privations and persecutions just to survive. Those pioneers faced challenges we would wimper and cower under. Part of that challenge was being obedient to a religious principle which the outside condemned without understanding and with extreme prejudice. I apprecitate Nighthawke's exposition. History must always be viewed in context, but today we choose to make the context up based on the current political and social climate. Link to comment
NoSmiles Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 The other thing I hear people like John Corrill saying is that they don't object to consenting adults practicing polygamy but then as soon as an intelligent adult woman chooses to enter a plural marriage she all of a sudden becomes a brainwashed victim somehow. How do you see women in the FLDS who think Warren Jeffs is god and that he commanded them to practice polygamy and they blessed because of it? Are they a brainwashed victim? Did woman practice polygamy because they thought is was a great idea or did they do it because god commanded it? What do you think about the book that was produced during 1830-1840 that promoted polygamy as a way to relieve man sexual dependence on one woman making him more independent? Link to comment
Froggie Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Question. Do you think God commanded polygamy during the early church history years? If so, why did God command it in a place where it was an uphill battle to get it "to work" to the extent it wasn't a sheer nightmarish lifestyle? Either God commanded it or he didn't. If you believe he did commanded it, then God plopped the principle deliberately in a place where it was going to be an extreme challenge to live with all of the legal/social obstacles in place. Why would we need to be looking elsewhere for the application of polygamy when making a determination on whether or not it is a feasible lifestyle?And another question. What in the world is the appeal of polygamy for you?I come from polygamy stock. My father was born in Colonia Juarez, the LDS polygamous colonies down in Mexico, where my genealogical line practiced polygamy for multiple generations. My immediate upline shows Benjamin Cluff, the president of Brigham Young Academy in 1899 for cripeys sakes, running down to the colonies because he wanted to polygamously marry Florence Reynolds. I have read enough journals to understand that, although marriage in and of itself is a challenge sometimes, polygamy presents its own unique set of challenges that make the day-to-day living aspect of it to be mostly intolerable and an exercise in endurance without quality.I remain unconvinced it is a state of union that has any upside to it. Unless it is actually polyandry, a state wherein a sole woman can have multiple husbands which would ensure higher quality of life through multiple incomes, and the reproductive numbers are controlled so the lifestyle variables do not become too cumbersome or large.But most people don't go for that, do they? Polgamy is all about population numbers. More women=more babies.Big green hugs,Froggie Link to comment
NoSmiles Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Polgamy is all about population numbers. More women=more babies. I do not understand this point. Maybe more babies for the man but not more babies for the woman. Link to comment
Froggie Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Polgamy is all about population numbers. More women=more babies. I do not understand this point. Maybe more babies for the man but not more babies for the woman. More babies for the family line, more posterity. That is the biblical justification for polygamy.Big green hugs,Froggie Link to comment
Nighthawke Posted September 26, 2006 Author Share Posted September 26, 2006 The other thing I hear people like John Corrill saying is that they don't object to consenting adults practicing polygamy but then as soon as an intelligent adult woman chooses to enter a plural marriage she all of a sudden becomes a brainwashed victim somehow. How do you see women in the FLDS who think Warren Jeffs is god and that he commanded them to practice polygamy and they blessed because of it? Are they a brainwashed victim? Did woman practice polygamy because they thought is was a great idea or did they do it because god commanded it? What do you think about the book that was produced during 1830-1840 that promoted polygamy as a way to relieve man sexual dependence on one woman making him more independent? This thread isn't about the FLDS. The topic is 19th century Mormonism and the historical context: antipolygamy legislation and the ensuing crusade by federal agents and the courts. Link to comment
why me Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 The poster brings up a great point about the historical context of polygamy. This is quite often overlooked on the exmo or anti side. It is also overlooked quite often on the 'woman as victim' side of polygamy. To put this in perspective, I really do believe that JS was somewhat pressured into polygamy...he certainly was not a willing participant. From a historical perspective, we can return to the bible for support of JS's polygamy revelation. Why polygamy? I do believe that it was to test the saints in obeying the word of the God. And a test it was. It was alsos to reinestate a biblical covenant. JS did not have a happy polygamous life. In fact, his life would have been better off without it. But it felt the revelation and put that revelation into practice. Was he happy? No. But obeying the lord is not about happiness sometimes, it is about obeying the lord. In fact, from a historical perspective, I would have been suspicious if polygamy was not reinstated during JS's time. Why would god overlook such a practice in the last dispensation? The courts and the law was against JS and the polygamous saints but god's will was obeying and it succeeded. In the end, the church is stronger for it and not weaker. The lds are a bible based church after all. Link to comment
NoSmiles Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Polgamy is all about population numbers. Link to comment
NoSmiles Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 The other thing I hear people like John Corrill saying is that they don't object to consenting adults practicing polygamy but then as soon as an intelligent adult woman chooses to enter a plural marriage she all of a sudden becomes a brainwashed victim somehow. How do you see women in the FLDS who think Warren Jeffs is god and that he commanded them to practice polygamy and they blessed because of it? Are they a brainwashed victim? Did woman practice polygamy because they thought is was a great idea or did they do it because god commanded it? What do you think about the book that was produced during 1830-1840 that promoted polygamy as a way to relieve man sexual dependence on one woman making him more independent? This thread isn't about the FLDS. The topic is 19th century Mormonism and the historical context: antipolygamy legislation and the ensuing crusade by federal agents and the courts. Part of your thread has to do with historical polygamy. The other part talked about how some people could see participates of polygamy as victims. I hope I have answered that for you. As far as historical polygamy I think that the book publish in 1830-1840 that asserted that polygamy would relieve women sexual power over men could give some insights as to why polygamy was started. This, of coarse, is from a historical prospective not spiritual. Link to comment
Ref Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 And another question. What in the world is the appeal of polygamy for you?Good question.I also question the idea that it was a command from God at a time and place that it faced a huge moral and social opposition. What was to be accomplished?For those who support that it was a "God given command", have you ever wondered what God or the Lds Church hoped to accomplish that would not have been accomplished with monogamy? When you really think about it, polygamy accomplished nothing that the Lds Church could not have achieved via monogamy.Furthermore, the lds church would likely be much stronger and face much less opposition today had Smith not introduced its practice. Chances are also very good that had Smith not introduced it, the Lds Church would not be alienating friends and families from wedding exclusions. Link to comment
USU78 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 NH, it has also been pointed out both in prior threads on the subject and elsewhere the realistic options lower- to middleclass girls and women had in Victorian Angloamerica.She could work in the mills from age 12 (or so) until she married (and hopefully not be killed or take sick with anthrax or tuberculosis before then).She could marry young to escape the mills (hopefully to somebody with the financial wherewithal or acumen to provide a living).She could flee to the American West, there to become one of Willa Cather's crazy lonely women who were but a hair's breadth away from burning the sod house down around the family's head. There were no mills there to claim her.She could flee to Zion, perhaps to become a 2nd or 3rd wife of an endowed priesthood holder, perhaps to become the wife of a monogamist priesthood holder, perhaps to become the wife of a monogamist nonpriesthood holder. There were no mills to speak of to claim her.Hard luck is the fortune of all womankind.Given the realistic alternatives available to her, I find my ancestresses' choices with regard to polygyny quite rational. Link to comment
Deborah Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 For those who support that it was a "God given command", have you ever wondered what God or the Lds Church hoped to accomplish that would not have been accomplished with monogamy? Very simply it was part of the restoration of all things including eternal marriage which included the covenant of plural wives as practiced by the ancient prophets. It had nothing to do with convenience or lack of it. Link to comment
Confidential Informant Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 If so, why did God command it in a place where it was an uphill battle to get it "to work" to the extent it wasn't a sheer nightmarish lifestyle? Either God commanded it or he didn't. If you believe he did commanded it, then God plopped the principle deliberately in a place where it was going to be an extreme challenge to live with all of the legal/social obstacles in place. Why would we need to be looking elsewhere for the application of polygamy when making a determination on whether or not it is a feasible lifestyle?Ah yes, another of Froggie's "why didn't God do it the way I think He should have?" posts? Of course, the logic of her post can applied to so many different areas of life. Let's try it, shall we?Let's talk about Christianity in general. Why did God have Christ establish Christianity in a place where it was an uphill battle to get it "to work" to the extent it wasn't a sheer nightmarish lifestyle? Why pick Israel, of all places? All those Jews were bound to be hostile to it. And what about the Romans? Why would God have all of this happen in a place so heavily under the influence of the Roman empire? It appears that "God plopped" the new reiligion "deliberately in a place where it was going to be an extreme challenge to live with all of the legal/social obstacles in place." Surely God knew that all those Christians were going to be fed to the lions etc. Silly God, if only he'd have consulted w/ Froggie first. Her same logic can, of course, be used in any of our lives. Why does God do anything he does? Why does God allow any of us to face trials? Why did God send the Saints to Missouri. Obviously he knew it was going to go badly there. Why did God send me to my last job when he obviously knew they were going to screw me over? Why didn't God just make it all so darned easy?C'mon Froggie, you can do better than that.C.I. Link to comment
Calm Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I think that the book publish in 1830-1840Title and author and any other info (perhaps a link even?) that you have on this,please. Link to comment
liz3564 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I am curious about this question by Ref:For those who support that it was a "God given command", have you ever wondered what God or the Lds Church hoped to accomplish that would not have been accomplished with monogamy?Any takers? Link to comment
Confidential Informant Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I am curious about this question by Ref:For those who support that it was a "God given command", have you ever wondered what God or the Lds Church hoped to accomplish that would not have been accomplished with monogamy?Any takers? The creation of a basis for form of powerful group cohesion that united the Saints in a way that nothing else would have. C.I. Link to comment
Confidential Informant Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Not sure if anyone caught this today. As long as the attorney aims at "decriminalization" he might have a decent shot. If he shoot for state recognition, he's dead in the water.C.I. Link to comment
liz3564 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I am curious about this question by Ref:For those who support that it was a "God given command", have you ever wondered what God or the Lds Church hoped to accomplish that would not have been accomplished with monogamy?Any takers? The creation of a basis for form of powerful group cohesion that united the Saints in a way that nothing else would have. C.I. So are you saying that the Saints of today are less united because this "powerful group cohesion" no longer exists? Link to comment
Calm Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 For those who support that it was a "God given command", have you ever wondered what God or the Lds Church hoped to accomplish that would not have been accomplished with monogamy? One could look at the differences between the LDS and RLDS/CoC histories for a possible reason if one was into speculation. Link to comment
NoSmiles Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I think that the book publish in 1830-1840Title and author and any other info (perhaps a link even?) that you have on this,please. I read about the books in Rough Stone Rolling. P 445 Paragraph 4 I will quote from RSR:...The peace Maker; or The Doctrines of the Millennium by Udney Hay Jacob, a book favoring plural marriage published in 1842 by the Mormon press in Nauvoo. Jacob...argued for easy divorce and polygamous marriage in order to reduce the sexual influence of women and restore male authority. Society, Jacob believed, was suffering from the decay of patriarchal dominance and would perish unless men were put back in charge. Women were lording it over their husbands, Jacob thought, because of men's sexual needs. Polygamy would liberate men and restore their rightful authority. Joseph's plural marriage relation also gave husbands the upper hand..." Bushman gave other spiritual reasons from polygamy but since this is a historical thread let's stick to historical evidence only not spiritual revelations. If anyone else has more info on these books please share. Link to comment
Calm Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 let stick to historical evidenceOkay. How about historical evidence that this was what actually commonly happened in LDS polygamous marriages?There are some that claim LDS polygynous marriages give women freer rein (with, I believe, greated historical support) as it grants more independence (as is evidenced by many who went back east for education, some supported even by the other wives) and more choice (as in more options on who to marry which led to many choosing more financially secure situations).Unlike some other societies' practices with polygyny, the women weren't restricted to solely one role--sexual/breeding--but engaged in multiple roles, polygyny freeing the women as well as the men from limitations that might have been imposed for purely sexual reasons. Link to comment
Confidential Informant Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 So are you saying that the Saints of today are less united because this "powerful group cohesion" no longer exists?In many ways, yes, I am. Is this a shock? C.I. Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Not sure if anyone caught this today. As long as the attorney aims at "decriminalization" he might have a decent shot. If he shoot for state recognition, he's dead in the water.C.I. Do you think this "decriminalization" would distinguish between consensual bigamy and non-consensual (i.e., H, while married to W1, and without her knowledge or consent, secretly marries W2)?Thanks,-Smac Link to comment
Brackite Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 C.I. wrote:Not sure if anyone caught this today. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.