When Pondering Polygamy.... Do You Feel

[truthseeker2]

Since you want opinions... I can give mine.

I hated polygamy. Always have. It disgusted me and was a big issue for me. Caused me many a sleepless nights.

Many, many moons later I read "In Sacred Loneliness". And it actually IMPROVED my opinion of Joseph Smith and polygamy. (I also disagreed with a couple of conclusions the author had made. Didn't feel there was enough evidence for his suppositions.) HOWEVER, my opinion of Brigham Young TANKED. I might be able to wrap my head around the general JS polygamy (but don't care to try), but I really personally feel that BY beyond messed it up.

But that's just my opinion.

Interesting view point. I just finished as well and came up with just the opposite opinion. I agree that Brigham came across harshly, but the writer is a devout feminist ( states it in the forward ). My opinion of Joseph actually suffered and my view of Brigham actually increased.

Let's look at this way. Your Brigham Young, Joseph comes to you with the revelation concerning polygamy. You have demonstrated you unquestioning loyalty in every case when it comes to brother Joseph. Now he's telling you that there is a need for polygamy. Your mind reviles, but Joseph is the prophet and so you continue to obey. Soon you take on other wives, but you see Joseph do so secretly. You also find out that polygamy is a caustic topic that is ripping apart the church during Josephs final days. You also notice that Joseph's first wife is not entirely on board, and in your opinion she has had the same testimony or witness of Joseph's calling as yourself.

Brigham Young was not a fence sitter, and the way I look at it is that Brigham actually practiced polygamy in the manner that Joseph revealed it to Brigham. I think Joseph was the one who never practiced in in the open, and frankly that's where I have many issues with that form of polygamy. Brigham also had to suffer with the blessings and consequences of living the law, Joseph never fully realized these struggles due to his early demise.

I actually thought Brigham and Heber Kimball's offering to take the wives of Joseph were also above and beyond the call of duty. Let's face it, it can be argued how inspired or uninspired Brigham was during this time when it came to polygamy, but the man took on a whole lot of responsibility.

I know there were some sister wives who ended up upset at Brigham, and frankly the Zina Jacob's story bothered me to some extent. But who was the one who proposed the marriage in the first place, (while she was married to brother Jacobs), yes it was Joseph. Brigham probably should have let Zina continue to live with her husband like Joseph was known to do with his wives, and I'm not sure how complacent Brigham was in terms of Brother Jacob's excommunication from the church, but if your looking at it from a logical and ethical point of view, (IF) Brigham in fact pressured Zina to leave Jacob's and move in with his family, then in fact Brigham was at least attempting to keep uphold some sort of traditional values to the marriage.

Frankly if anyone messed up the whole law of polygamy it was the person who introduced it. From day one it was practiced behind closed doors and in secret. Brigham if to be blamed should only be blamed for the common day attitudes that women were not more then cattle or livestock in some respects. He also wasn't too fond of other races either. You can tell Brigham was far from an educated man, and I'm sure like Joseph grew into his position as time moved on.

[owl]

... some of the plural wives did leave legal court testimony...

Theophilus07

Whose wives were they, and what is the sourece?

[Scott Lloyd]

We are not the same.. Maybe the Mods can confirm it..

Yeah. After they've cautioned you about complying with board rules. (Don't worry, I won't report you. I don't want this thread closed just yet.)

Getting paranoid Scott?

No, just curious. It's a fair question. Why would Theophilus respond to a post directed to you as though it were directed to him, when the post in question had my responses interlineated with your remarks?

It wouldn't be the first time someone play acting on a board such as this momentarily forgot which role he was playing.

And it remains for Theophilus to explain himself.

As to my sources..

They are derived ultimately from LDS authorities, so why should it matter where I got them from?

So you admit your information flows through and is tainted by anti-Mormon channels then? And we all know how trustworthy they are!

It all boils down to slanting and to context -- or lack thereof. I think you understand that.

Btw..

As to your faith promoting spin on polygamy.. If polygamy was all about raising righteous seed, where was Joseph Smith’s righteous results from his 30 or more wives?

Well now, assuming some of those plural marriages were not just spiritual sealings, what with evading hostile mobs, dealing with false brethren and establishing the Church in the last dispensation, he didn't have a lot of opportunity to raise up much seed before his enemies murdered him at age 38, did he? Who knows what would have happened had he been allowed to live and go west with the saints?

As prophet of the Restoration, Joseph's role with regard to plural marriage was to receive the revelation from God, convey it to the leading brethren of the Church and set the example by obeying the commandment himself.

Now then, where's that documentation on the 3 percent/25 percent? Or are you ready to own up to the fact that you pulled it out of your imagination?

[cdowis]

>I'm sort of a polygamist who doesn't polyg.

Do you have an "understanding" with certain individuals? Is that appropriate?

[truthseeker2]

Whose wives were they, and what is the sourece?

owl, if I had the book I'd quote you page and source. The guy is right, the Utah church in 1900 had a big debate with the RLDS church about the fact that Joseph did in fact have wives. Joseph Smith III actually came out to Utah and interviewed many of these women. It's actually fairly common knowledge among historical person's of this event. Many of these interviews resulted in proof that Joseph was indeed married to these women. If you want exact names and sources just give me until tonight and I'll document them on this thread. I'm sure the guy your questioning about sources could do the same if given the time.

As to the allegation that he was married to several women who were married to husbands at the same time, or bigamy. This can also be proven as well. I'm not sure why there is any debate to this fact. I guess the "sexual" innuendo is what is killing some readers. I think it's been admitted by several apologetic supporters of polygamy that the practice was introduced to increase the base of those families which were core to the church at the time. If you notice, most of the families introduced to the concept were loyalist's of Joseph and Brigham.

I'll tell you my biggest problem with this whole mess. #1 I don't believe God would tell his prophet to take someone's else's wife as his eternal companion, while married to their current husband. This has nothing to do with having sex with this other man's wife, even though I'd have a problem with that as well. The justification was that if the women's current husband was not a member or a member in not good standing, then realistically they didn't have much of a chance to make it as a celestial couple. I'm not sure how that computes when we preform ordinances for those who have passed on and whom are not members every day. Why would God tell Joseph, go ahead and marry that guy's wife, and that poor shlep will be taken care of eventually if he get's his act together. #2 I believe that their are fundamental issues that are inherent with polygamy that are difficult on traditional marriages. The whole aspect of a partnership (traditional marriage), and how it relates to family, career, and religious life. How can you have a wife that is emotionally full filled, children who really get time with a father with the practice of polygamy. It goes against fundamental values of what we teach in the church today about family. I don't understand how someone can rationalize that Heber or Brigham were great fathers and husbands when they were AWOL with most of the wives and children.

So does polygamy work? Not in our lifetime or the lifetime of those whom practiced it. I know there are arguments that those who lived it loved it, but in reality look at WHY they believed it. If they didn't they wouldn't get into the Celestial kingdom. The human mind is amazing, if you really keep thinking or believing something over and over, pretty soon you will love what ever your telling yourself.

Sorry if this sounds anti, but I'm not really anti at all. The issue of polygamy is one issue that I cannot just shake off as a correct principal of the gospel. And the author of this thread asked specifically if we are proud or ashamed. I'm just stating my opinion and I frankly don't care what those whom think I'm off my rocker even think. I'd state the same to my Bishop or Stake President if they ask me as well.

[TAK]

Deleted by author ..

[owl]

I edited this to add the part at the first giving my opinion. I had intended to read the entire thread before I posted but decided to post my question to Theophilus before I got to the end. Then when I got here and my post was the last I decided to give my opinion of polygamy ahead of the question.

Let me preface my opinion of polygamy by a few comments.

1. Women by nature are more caring, more willing to give service, and more concerned about the feelings of others. It is my long held opinion that men were given the priesthood so they would be constrained to spend more time giving service. It certainly wasn't because they are better leaders, although if they lead by persuasion, longsuffering, and love unfeigned, they will become much better leaders than they were.

2. As I understand the New and Evelasting Covenant in Section 132, it is the restoration of all the Laws and Ordinances of the Gospel that were ever had among men since the time of Adam. It is new, not because it did not exist previously, but because it has been restored to earth anew. It is everlasting both because the priesthood authority allows the ordinances done here on earth to be binding in Heaven hereafter for all eternity if we live worthy, but also because the Laws and Ordinances are from God, one of whose names is Everlasting. The first part of 132 is binding, and the part about polygamy is permissive for the majority of us, not any more of course. And yes, polygamy was to increase the posterity of the Old Testament Patriarch's.

3. Polygamy, like the united order, requires a more celestial spirit than most of us have at present. We may think we are capable, but when we try living it, is when the conflicts arise. We have enough trouble getting along with one wife. The only way we would be at all capable of polygamy is serially.

4. There is a story, whose source I forget and it may be apocryphal, about a sister who found another woman crying in the chapel and asked what was the matter. The tearful woman responded that she had no husband, and apparently despaired of finding one. The first sister replied, "Come with me. You can marry my husband."

5. Mark Twain is said to have observed something like, I have seen Brigham Young's wives, and I do not envy him a bit.

Now my opinion. I think polygamy is fine if and only if the women have a Christlike love for one another and are willing to put the others needs ahead of their own and if and only if the man has an unselfish love for each of the women. If the man is at all motivated by selfish interest, he would not be a candidate in my book.

Now a question:

... some of the plural wives did leave legal court testimony...

Theophilus07

Whose wives were they, and what is the content and the source of the info on their court testimony?

[owl]

Well, the Question for Theophilus was the last post when I started to add to it.

[Machtyn]

Except when the Church practiced polygamy in Nauvoo where it was against the law, and except when the Church practices polygamy in the Utah Territory, where it was also against Federal Law. It can be documented that the Church disobeyed the laws in two different geographical settings. Federal law does not seem to have had much influence on the Church in those two settings. Either that, or it was not one of the Church's tenets.

Incidentally, a "tenant" is an occupant of a room or suite, while a "tenet" is a rule or principle. I think you meant "tenet."

If you do, then bear in mind Pres. Woodruff stated that he discontinued polygamy because in saw in vision that otherwise, the Church's property would have been confiscated by the Federal government. Why believe he was the prophet, but disbelieve what he says?

Theophilus07

Oh, Theophilus. Grasping at straws... and attacking my spelling? Of course, tenet is what I meant. As far as I know, and I'm willing to be corrected on this because I have not researched this particular topic in depth, but when the practice of polygamy was instituted it was NOT against the law. After they started the practice, the people who were against the "Mormons" convinced the politicians to pass the law against polygamy.

[owl]

Thank you Truthseeker.

So, the statements were not 'court testimony' afterall!

Maybe Theophilus has another source.

My statement about my opinion of polygamous marriages needing unselfish Christlike love among the parties ought to apply to monogamous marriages as well. I think polygamy would be fine if it was like that and falls short in any age if it was not.

Whoever commented on Brigham's child rearing should give him more credit for how he dealt with his children. He prayed at the dinner table in such a way that a visitor was tempted to look up to see if God was standing there, and he tried to regulate the dress standards of his daughters to encourage them not to follow frivolous vain fashions. I think Brigham said something to the effect that they used enough material in one dress to make modest dresses for three women.

[Theophilus07]

Whose wives were they, and what is the content and the source of the info on their court testimony?

In 1892-93, the LDS Church participated in what is now called the "Temple Lot Lawsuit" over possession of the Jackson County, Missouri Temple lot (not the Kirtland Temple). To prove that the LDS Church was the legal successor to the Church started by Joseph Smith -- and thus owner of the deed to the Missouri Temple Lot -- President Woodruff solicited 13 of Joseph Smith's wives to testify that they were not just sealed to Joseph Smith, but married in the fullest sense of the word. Ultimately, the judge ruled that the LDS Church was NOT the legal successor church to the one Joseph Smith started, but not until after the testimony of 13 of Joseph Smith's wives.

You can read the court transcripts published by several sources. Because the LDS Church was ruled against, the RLDS delight in making the transcript available. However, a volume based on the microfiche copies of the transcripts is also available from the Tanners. And then there's the actual transcript on record in Jackson County.

Some of the many sources: Arthur M. Smith, Temple Lot Deed, 3rd ed., (Independence: Board of Publications, Church of Christ, 1963), 5; see also Jackson County, Deed Record, Book B:1-3; Deseret News, Church Section, 23 January 1932, p. 1; Richard Price and Pamela Price, The Temple of the Lord (Independence: authors, 1982).

And what did the wives testify to according to the court records? That they were Joseph Smith's wives in every sense of the word including physical intimacy.

Theophilus

[truthseeker2]

Wow, that PBS documentary is already having a ripple effect on several Cougar sports boards. Seems the faithful are calling for Bushman's head on a platter. What they don't understand he's as far from an anti then you'll ever meet. Many comments already about polygamy. Man I missed it because my DVR can only record two programs at once. Couldn't miss 24 and Hero's!!

[Theophilus07]

So, the statements were not 'court testimony' afterall!

Maybe Theophilus has another source.

Oh, the 13 wives of Joseph Smith did indeed give "court testimony." Their testimony was that they were married in the fullest sense of the word to Joseph Smith, including physical intimacy. And their testimony was solicited by Pres. Woodruff.

Because the "Temple Lot" case is famous, there are many sources: Arthur M. Smith, Temple Lot Deed, 3rd ed., (Independence: Board of Publications, Church of Christ, 1963), 5; see also Jackson County, Deed Record, Book B:1-3; Deseret News, Church Section, 23 January 1932, p. 1; Richard Price and Pamela Price, The Temple of the Lord (Independence: authors, 1982).

Theophilus07

[Dale]

The Temple Lot case decision went against the claim's of the wives to being wives. Only two wives had appeared in person. I don't know anything about 13 wives and only a few affidavit's were from other reputed wives. Legally Joseph Smith was exonerated of polygamy. I have a copy of the Temple Lot case, and know of no 13 wives.

Richard and Pamela Price show the various types of problems with Eliza Snows claim. Their book that treats her claim is found online in the JSFP section at http://www.restorationbookstore.org . Other than William Clayton's reputed Nauvoo Journal nothing exists proveable to back up her claim. I once had an e-mail from Pamela Price where she told me shae could not comment on the source as she had not yet made an in-depth study of them. I suspect she thinks William Clayton forged them in Utah to fool later Utah-LDS historians. Without the source undergoing independent document examination like Hoffman's forgeries it's hard to know that they are authentic.

I am re-reading In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Comptom. And I am not persuaded with his arguments against what has been termed pseudo-polygamy and pseudo-polyandry. His witnesses of reputed children of Joseph Smith are not that impressive. DNA studies have been done on Josephine Fishers claim, and it has not ever been confirmed. Mary Lightner never named the three children she alleged Joseph Smith had via his plural wives. George Smith did tell his wife some tale about Emma Smith acting as a midwife for one of Joseph's plural wives. With scolars of Todd Comptom's persuasion the mere fact someone claimed crap years ago made the old crap true.

My respect for Joseph Smith grows the more I study the polygamy information.

D.&C. 132:61 prevents adultury with married women legally vowed to other men for mortality. No wonder the 11 women on the polyandry list continued to live with the mortal husbands. Even if the time and for eternity phrase were used in the ceremonies of no adultury was permitted. The husbands wern't sharing their wives with Joseph Smith.

Jame's Whitehead claimed in the Temple Lot case that he saw the original copy of D&C 132 at Winter Quarters. He alleged the one the LDS Church published was deliberately altered to implicate Joseph Smith in earthly polygamy. Joseph Smith 3rd based on such testimony believed that his father had been platonically sealed in arrangements meant for the eternity. That these sealings were possibly being later misconstrued in Utah. Every time I re-read In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Comptom I happen to agree with Joseph's son that this is what scholars do.

I have a few cases that I cannot discount the possibility of some earthly polygamy on the part of Joseph Smith. But I see Joseph Smith as practicing more pretend pseudo-polygamy than genuine actual polygamy.

I think Todd Comptom's 33-so well documented cases of Joseph Smith and polygamy is not so well documented in my estimation. Almira and Benjamin Johnson claimed Hyrum Smith told her to go ahead and be sealed to Joseph Smith. My copy of Mormon Enigma pg. 142 I think has Hyrum Smith fighting against polygamy in late May. Todd Comptom on page six has Almira's sealing to Joseph happen sometime between April 2-22 1843. His thinking is sound for his estimate as Johnson and Almira had to travel to Nauvoo on that date as no time exists for it having happened on another date. Hyrum Smith couldn't have been in the know until late May so he unknowingly brings into question her claim about being a wife. The claim Delcina Johnson was a wife fails if Almira and BEnjamin can't be proved to be reliable witnesses.

[Thinking]

Listen, if you are going to deny someone's free will and wishes, based on you calling them a brainwashed victim/captive, please at least do me the favor of realizing that you are no different than those you claim are oppressing. You think it justified to decide for these women what you think their lifestyle should be, and what YOU consider to be freedom. But what freedom is it if women do not have a choice, and it is you the "sympathetic" man coming in to tell them how they should and should not live?

This kind of argument makes it impossible for any women to ever show approval of the practice because no matter what they do, even gathering in large meetings and demonstrations to defend the practice, you will still deny they are choosing so. You will call them victims under duress, and in doing so deny them their voice and the freedom to live as they wish.

I don't doubt that there are some women who would prefer a polygamous lifestyle. It is naive, however, to believe that the women had 100% free will. If you recall from my post, although they could vote, the women couldn't hold office. They still were subject to the decisions of men, whether they were religious or civil leaders. And as was pointed out during the Reed Smoot Hearings, the LDS Church exerted a lot of political power during that time. After all, BY was prophet and governor for a time.

Go ahead, call me an oppressor. I'm not the one who threatened my wife with destruction if she didn't allow me to have more wives.

[Thinking]

Being on a show in front of a national audience is not the venue to explain doctrine.

Then why did he go on the show? Is he really that naive to think those types of questions would not be asked?

[Stargazer]

Polygamy is not sustainable and could not be considered moral under Kant's Categorical Imperative. If everyone tried to practice polygamy it would self-destruct.

That Immanuel Kant fellow -- always such a kidder!

But philosophers, like philosophy itself, frequently come up with sophistries like this. They sound sophisticated, too, don't they, when you first hear them. Later, when you come to put these kinds of philosophical sound bites through the filter of your faculties you realize that they are actually fatuous falsehoods foisted upon fully awestruck sycophants who rush to worship their heroes' every fatwa. There. As many "f" words as I could come up with. Heh.

Anyway, Mr. Kant's Categorical Imperative is a bucket of bushwa. "If everyone tried to practice polygamy, it (meaning society, I suppose) would self-destruct." Sounds wise at first hearing, until you give it a moment's further thought. If everyone tried to work as computer programmers it would self-destruct. Therefore, computer programming is unsustainable and hence immoral. If everyone tried to sell Fuller brushes door-to-door, it would self-destruct. Therefore door-to-door brush selling is unsustainable and hence immoral. If everyone tried to use Kant's Categorical Imperative (which sounds like a good title for something being sold by a snake-oil vendor) to disprove things they didn't like, it would self-destruct. So Kant's Categorical Imperative is unsustaninable, and hence immoral.

But all that aside, God has permitted and/or commanded plural marriage in such limited circumstances over the millennia that even if Kant's theory of Categorical Imperative held any water at all (which it does not), it couldn't even be applied to it.

------

Westley: "You're that smart, are you?"

Vizzini: "Let me put it this way. You've heard of Socrates, Aristotle, Kant?"

Westley: "Yes..."

Vizzini: "Morons."

[Stargazer]

Then why did he go on the show? Is he really that naive to think those types of questions would not be asked?

Yeah, yeah.

Then it would have been the Anti-Mo's who would have cackled that Pr. Hinckley didn't go on King's show because he was afraid of the hardball questions.

It's called, "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't." So go ahead.

At the end of the long process whereby Sir Thomas More was finally brought to the point that he was going to be executed anyway, regardless of how he tried to avoid a public (or even a private) condemnation of King Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn, even resigning important offices so he didn't have to take a loyalty oath that included consenting to what he believed was wrong, he finally bowed to the inevitability and came out with it, dying an honorable man. But STM lied by his silence all the way to the base of the gibbet, hoping to slide somehow out of the predicament.

GBH before King Larry was going to be pilloried by all and sundry no matter which way he leaped on this question, but since things had still not come to the extremis that More was brought to, he chose a middle road. It was the only way to go, actually. All you complainers of how he chose to answer want him to have spent ten minutes explaining the practice so that this was the only thing that stuck with the audience at the end, but if he had done so you would have been with the multitude gleefully seeking blood, figuratively speaking, because of the forthrightness you wanted exhibited. This is called "making another an offender for a word." Or so I take it, anyway.

[Stargazer]

I don't know why any of us really participate in these discussions. Do we think anyone's opinion will change due to verbal contention?? We all (including me) come here with very predisposed opinions and in the end we will likely continue to listen to the spirit that guides us - whatever that spirit may be. Good Evening.

Some argue for the sake of the argument. Some are trying to sharpen their skills in debate so as to be better prepared. Some think they might actually affect how others think or feel about a subject by arguing their point of view. A few seem to actually enjoy being as offensive as they can, and think this will convince.

Myself, I find it highly interesting to see how others look at these many topics, and it helps me better understand my neighbors (both here and elsewhere). Perhaps I also lean towards the hope of affecting another's ideas towards what I believe to be right. I also get a kick out of some of the turns of phrase some of you come up with, even those of you whom I disagree with.

[Stargazer]

This is exactly the reason the church would not reinstate it. It is one of our tenants to be subject to the laws of the land. It just also happens to be one of the criticisms that that is the only reason the church discontinued the practice of polygamy. (It really just comes down to if you believe that President Woodruff was the prophet of God or not.)

I'd love to agree with you, but I cannot. President Woodruff stated that he was willing to take it all the way to the complete dissolution of the church, unless the Lord commanded otherwise, in complete defiance of the law of the land. He was very clear about this. It was precisely what happened with Abraham, wherein Abraham took Isaac all the way to Moriah, bound him and laid him on the altar, and had raised the knife to strike before the angel stayed his hand. Likewise, President Woodruff was willing to go the distance at whatever the cost, along with every other faithful member of the church, simply because the Lord had commanded it, and had not revoked the command. They took it all the way to Mount Moriah, figuratively speaking, and did not slacken their committment until the Lord himself revoked the obligation to obey the command. In my view, this was the Church's fulfillment or validation of loyalty to the Lord. If this had not happened, that is, if say John Taylor had blinked and submitted to the law before the Lord had given His leave to obey it, the Church may very well have been doomed, or would have suffered a serious setback.

And by saying that the Lord revoked the obligation to obey the commandment does not say that the Lord revoked the principle itself.

[Stargazer]

And so it was that the purpose of the Lord was fulfilled as expressed in Jacob 2:30; that is, by instituting plural marriage among the early members of the Church, the Lord raised up seed unto himself.

Much like that of a Master Race? Clearly one of the more creepy things I do believe I have seen you post.

You call that creepy? It's a derived quote from the Book of Mormon, which surely you think is creepy, but your invocation of Master Race goes WAY beyond creepy, and the pale. Accusations of Nazism, hmmm? I suppose you also ought to remonstrate against the Almighty for calling His people Israel a chosen people. I don't know where your religious leanings are, slick, but if you want master race, let's go look at the New Testament:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (New Testament | Romans 8:16 - 17)

The heir of a duke is a duke; the heir of a count is a count; the heir of a king is a king. What is an heir of God, a joint-heir with Christ? There's your master race, slick. You may be one of those who deny that God is a God of gods, a god at all, or even The God, but if you do reverence the Father and His Son then you must realize that if God needed to do so, he could raise up sons of Abraham from the stones of the ground. But He didn't need to -- he had the obedient sons and daughters whom He had called up and commanded to raise a righteous generation unto Him, as he said He could and would in Jacob in the Book of Mormon. You can deny this, if you choose. It's your right. But don't start equating obedience to godly principles to Nazism.

[No Touch]

I don't doubt that there are some women who would prefer a polygamous lifestyle. It is naive, however, to believe that the women had 100% free will. If you recall from my post, although they could vote, the women couldn't hold office. They still were subject to the decisions of men, whether they were religious or civil leaders. And as was pointed out during the Reed Smoot Hearings, the LDS Church exerted a lot of political power during that time. After all, BY was prophet and governor for a time.

Go ahead, call me an oppressor. I'm not the one who threatened my wife with destruction if she didn't allow me to have more wives.

By that argument I could argue that many monogamous adult women are not free. Their choices are restricted by their government and society. If they find a good man whom they already know to be a loyal husband, he cannot in this society stay a loyal and dedicated husband while also marrying this woman. And so she has to gamble with a second or third choice. And what then when those marriages fail? You argue that men were oppressing and controlling these women, and your (and the government's) answer to it is to rescind their rights. Doesn't that seem a little backwards to you?

Women in monogamy were also equally if not more so subject to the decisions of men. Women had no power in the monogamous world at that time either, so how is it a valid criticism of polygamy?

Women chose to be Mormons and they chose to be polygamist. You can say that they were coerced by religious influence, but who isn't influenced by the words of others? And what is wrong with that? They heard the Word and believed that this was their calling, and they have a right to believe it. The government has no right to decide on this matter.

[Maya]

I feel none of the feelings that were listed. I feel curious, want to know why would it be so, why was it so. IF the consept after all WAS true and from God... we sure cant understand it today.... WHY was it given WHAT in the eternity and selestical could arise the need of more than one wife. IF that was a Gods command so be it... If it was not ... we will learn it one day and thoise that have been practicing, or those that have not been practicing will be forgiven. Either way it really does not matter. We live here and now! We have to adjust either way. My best friend... she has no man in church... if her eternity would hang on me and my approval of her as second wife to my hubby... it sure would make me think thoroughly. But then we will understand SO MUCH more than today!!

[Deborah]

Man I missed it because my DVR can only record two programs at once. Couldn't miss 24 and Hero's!!

Mine too. But I watched 24 on the bedroom tv while recording the other two on the main tv. I'll watch the PBS special this weekend though after reviewing the PBS thread not sure I want to.

[Deborah]

We live here and now! We have to adjust either way. My best friend... she has no man in church... if her eternity would hang on me and my approval of her as second wife to my hubby... it sure would make me think thoroughly. But then we will understand SO MUCH more than today!!

And that is the crux of the matter and what the critics do not comprehend. This was part of our history and out of it came many strong and faithful people. The people of Joseph's day had a very difficult challenge which most of them met. We have different challenges, but it all is a matter of faith. Our vision now is very limited and as I have said before we are bound by petty jealousies and insecurities that will not always be with us.