Questions About Polyandry

[Greg Smith]

Forgive me for jumping into an on-going discussion, but there's some things we could add that may help move things along.

Let me start by saying I don't think there's any one view of plural marriage that one "must" have to be a faithful member of the Church. As long as whatever you believe doesn't mean that you don't believe that priesthood authority persists, or that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, or Jesus is the Christ, I don't think it really matters.

That said, from a historical point of view, there is much to be learned.

I've picked out a few comments, which I will try to respond to:

my guess what changed her [Zina's] mind was Joseph's persistence, bringing up that he was a prophet of God in a private meeting with her , saying an angel threatened his life, she was his before the world was formed, and she and her family would have salvation.

Rather than "guessing" about what happens or why people made the decision they made, perhaps we ought to let them speak for themselves.

I have done plenty of research... Have you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

With due respect, I don't think wikipedia is really the sort of source that's going to help much on this. In the interests of full disclosure, I recently got back from speaking to the Miller-Eccles study group on plural marriage in Texas, so I have read a thing or two about it.

I'm going to start by quoting that old Mormon Apologist, John Stuart Mill, who saw the Mormons as a classic example of the abuse of personal rights (not that the Mormons were abusing rights, but that people were abusing the Mormons with respect to polygamy). The caution of this contemporary, non-Mormon thinker is worth bearing in mind:

â?¦it must be remembered that this relation [polygamy] is as much voluntary on the part of the women concerned in it, and who may be deemed the sufferers by itâ?¦and however surprising this fact may appearâ?¦

- John Stuart Mill, â??On Liberty,â? Chapter 4: On the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual (1859) <http://wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty>, last accessed 24 May 2005.

Modern critics of these women have not really changed much at all. They still use the same sort of reasoning (we've seen it on this very thread) that anti-Mormon novelists used to "explain" why a Mormon woman would put up with all this:

"â?¦whole groups of Mormons respond to the hypnotic powers of their leadersâ?¦

"What would seemingly be Mormonismâ??s [or polygamyâ??s?] vindication thus turns out to be its condemnationâ??its reliance on converts to the systemâ?¦

"This is why the query â??Why would women choose to participate in such a system?â? is precluded from the very start. Choice itself must be written out of the equationâ?¦"

"though brokenhearted, though stung to madness, though plunged into the deepest despair by their wrongs, yet the possibility of liberating themselves from their bondage scarcely occurred to the womenâ?¦" - Givens, Viper on the Hearth, 141â??142, 150.

Trusting Compton on the nuances of this point is risky. The fact that he's wedded to his "not inspired" thesis leads him to repeatedly misread evidence, as I can demonstrate at length if need be. Chief among these is his insistence (I count at least 6 times) that Mormons were taught to see Joseph as "Infallible," even though they clearly weren't--and the evidence he cites says so.

Why did Zina do it?

Bear in mind:

Joseph asked her three times, and she turned him down.

Henry Jacobs proposed, and then they asked Joseph to marry them. How intimidated can they be if they'll do that?

Zina describes why she made the choice she did:

"â?¦when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church." - Autobiography of Zina D. Young, no date, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 17, cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men," FAIR Paper, 2006.

So, she:

* searched the scriptures

* prayed

* received a testimony for herself.

Now, one can psychoanalyze her at a distance, but that's probably worth about what psychoanalysis is of anyone one has never met (and, with very few exceptions, anyone we HAVE met)--i.e., not much.

Compton thinks that "â?¦it is remarkable that while she was an impressionable nineteen-year-old, she would refuse his suit." (ISL, 79-80).

Frankly, this is remarkable only if:

* you're wedded to the idea of Joseph being seen as "infallible."

* You don't see 19-year-old women as potentially being independent, strong-minded, autonomous adults, which Zina clearly was.

The amazing thing is not that she said "No." The amazing thing is her saying, "Yes." Many of us have a visceral reaction to this idea; why do we presume that Zina's was any less potent than our own? Indeed, given her culture, I would think she would have been far MORE upset. Yet, something was sufficient to convince her.

Lucy Walker, Emily Partridge, Eliza R. Snow, and Mary Rollins Lightner's witnesses can also be explored profitably in this context. Ditto Benjamin Johnson.

More later.

Best,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

The claim Fanny Alger was ever pregnant with Joseph Smith's child look's like slander. Ann Eliza Webb Young father Chauncey Webb appears to have been the source of the rumor. Ann Eliza I understand was about two years old, or possibly born after the incident with Fanny Alger. But in either case Ann Eliza webb only repeated a story she heard from others.

Ann Eliza was born in 1844, so she wasn't around during the Fanny Alger marriage. (Fanny was remarried by 16 November 1836.) Webb is the only source that I know of on the supposed pregnancy; I agree it's pretty dubious. There were other hostile witnesses about it, and they didn't mention it. If she was pregnant, she miscarried, because we know about 9 of her other children by her second husband.

This has echoes of the stories about Eliza R. Snow, who in one retelling supposedly miscarried after Emma pushed her down the stairs. Again, this is dubious--Snow's diary of the time says nothing about a child, or losing one, which would have been very out of character.

One wonders if the Fanny story is even derived from the Snow one (or vice versa) in the gossip mill. Both are too similar, with too little substance to either.

Greg

[Dale]

The Sealing vs Marriage part of the Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy article is I think relevant to the polyandry issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr._and_polygamy

[karl61]

Ann Eliza was born in 1844, so she wasn't around during the Fanny Alger marriage. (Fanny was remarried by 16 November 1836.) Webb is the only source that I know of on the supposed pregnancy; I agree it's pretty dubious. There were other hostile witnesses about it, and they didn't mention it. If she was pregnant, she miscarried, because we know about 9 of her other children by her second husband.

This has echoes of the stories about Eliza R. Snow, who in one retelling supposedly miscarried after Emma pushed her down the stairs. Again, this is dubious--Snow's diary of the time says nothing about a child, or losing one, which would have been very out of character.

One wonders if the Fanny story is even derived from the Snow one (or vice versa) in the gossip mill. Both are too similar, with too little substance to either.

Greg

One thing you forgot to mention: Emma threw both girls/woman - Fanny and Eliza out of the house after a heated argument with Joseph. Don't you think Joseph should have gotten things straightened out with Emma before he started bringing these ladies into his life, instead of keeping his fingers crossed and a wait and see attitude which as we look back caused so much pain and frustration for these women.

[jerryp48]

One thing you forgot to mention: Emma threw both girls/woman - Fanny and Eliza out of the house after a heated argument with Joseph. Don't you think Joseph should have gotten things straightened out with Emma before he started bringing these ladies into his life, instead of keeping his fingers crossed and a wait and see attitude which as we look back caused so much pain and frustration for these women.

You're getting closer to painting an accurate picture of what the practice was like. Heaven forbid it comes back. Licentious indeed...as if.

[No Touch]

One thing you forgot to mention: Emma threw both girls/woman - Fanny and Eliza out of the house after a heated argument with Joseph. Don't you think Joseph should have gotten things straightened out with Emma before he started bringing these ladies into his life, instead of keeping his fingers crossed and a wait and see attitude which as we look back caused so much pain and frustration for these women.

Of course we think Joseph should have approached it better. Again, we do not consider him infallible. He was a human, and in this regard a very common man with a common fear and stupidity, and one that I cannot imagine any married man (who truly loves his wife) not being able to understand. Given this command, to reinstitute plural marriage and take wives, being the Prophet and thus having to be the first to do it - how do you explain it to your wife? How do you ask for her permission? Honestly, even knowing that a husband should, such a thing is scary as hell. It wasn't a perfect world or a perfect situation. Niether the world at large nor even many faithful members of the time were ready for this.

Now how many people here have never in their lives hidden anything out of fear?

[MJNSW]

Some will do and say anything to justify JS actions and choices as that of GOD!

Some people are realistic and see it for what it is!

We will all talk until we are blue in the face, but neither of us are going to be swayed to the other side.

Edited to add that ~ In the end Emma got the raw end of the deal. Not because of GOD but because of her husband! That is just not right!

[Dale]

Eliza and Fanny had to be removed from the hom. Emma if the stories are true had to have good morals in the home. I think she had courage for reportedly opposing polygamy in her home. Of course with Fanny I remain unconvinced it was polygamy but rather an affair. I don't pity poor Eliza. I am of course Reorganized LDS, and we opposed polygamy.

I am open to God being behind early Latter Day Saint polygamy if God was behind it. All to often this debate comes down to what we like, or dislike as persons. We never ask God about what he like's or dislikes. Unfortunately the only document that reputes to give God's answer is D.&C. 132. I like to think I would be open to listening to God confirming what was in that document.

The claim Emma Smith assaulted Eliza R. Snow has been disredited in Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. http://www.restorationbookstore.org My main caution against Richard and Pamela Price's conclusions is that they don't confront any documents from the Nauvoo Era. These documents back up atleast some of the content of later affidavits regarding Joseph's activities in Nauvoo. Though I caution not all things said in the documents said years after the event may be true. Emma Smith may have been the victim of some polemic attempts by Brigham Young's wive's to discredit Emma.

[Oracle]

I am unsure why it is so difficult for some to admit that Joseph was making mistakes. He was making up stuff as he went along. There is plenty of evidence to show evolving doctrine with regards to polygamy, sealings. What I do know is that with polyandry, Joseph somehow figured that being sealed to him was somehow more important than sealings of any other types. He did mass sealings to him. He did adoption sealings to him. I know that he was promising callings and elections being made sure because of proximity to him (proximity meaning his personal involvement within any giving sealing.)

I wonder why he thought his presence in any given sealing was more significant than a sealing provided to or for anyone else. Was his priesthood power somehow greater? Was any given marriage to him more strong than Heber and Vilate Kimball's marriage sealing? If such is the case, why do we not see these tiers of priesthood power today in these ceremonies? And again, if it is possible to make ones calling and election made sure through sealing connections, why is this no longer done in the church today?

With regards to coercion. Three times Zina told him no. NO. What part of NO did Joseph not understand? What do I think about people who can't seem to understand the concept of no when that answer is given them? I don't think much about them, let me tell you that. Somehow their agenda is so much more important that they devalue any opposing idea, show no respect for another's viewpoint, and are so ego-centric to figure their way is the only real option that they are persistent to the point of obnoxiousness. Joseph, with his methods, was devaluing these women.

We also know that these dead women were being taught of a doctrine they thought was necessary for their exaltation. To give a similar analogy, what if they were taught that the law of sacrifice included them killing their firstborn. Would they have done it? They would have if they thought God commanded it and it was necessary for their salvation. That is a powerfully motivating factor. Given what I have read of these women..and I have read a lot, including private, personal family journals going back to direct interactions with Joseph Smith...I think they would have killed their firstborn.

Is that their fault? It was the simple reality of the climate they were living in. Does that make it right? No, it does not, and those directly pressuring these women to do something their instinct clearly told them was wrong should bear some responsibility for creating such a coercive climate.

Polyandry brings up the following questions:

Was a sealing to Joseph more powerful than a sealing to any other righteous, good man? If so, why? Does God recognize a marriage sealing to a prophet as of greater significance than the sealings to any other good man?

Was Joseph promising carrots of exaltation for their involvement in this bizarre marriage arrangement? Do we know this? Can we prove this? Is this not a form of selling exaltation?

Is there something inherently immoral about snatching a woman and children away from her own, righteous husband so the prophet could have more crowns of glory in the hereafters? Is this not a very accurate reflection of a man acting in his personal self-interests?

Why does the church no longer recognize this type of arrangement? I think polyandry is a much different issue than polygamy as was practiced by the early leaders of the church.

[Oracle]

This is likely to be the last I'll state on this topic.

I find it unconscionable that one would feel compelled to defend the practice of polyandry as it was practiced by Joseph Smith, much less trying to link it to being sanctioned by God. Something has gone awry if you are doing this. You are sacrificing your conscience in order to defend a practice that has no ethical defense. And I will never respect that or come to some agreement about it.

[Kenngo1969]

"The Oracle" has spoken. What more needs to be said?

P.S.: And don't forget ... When "The Oracle" speaks to us Morgbots , the thinking has been done!

[karl61]

Remember, a lot of the women who heard the "principel" and that wanted nothing to do with this, including Emma, were not destroyed, as was the threat.

People say that Joseph married 33, but how many do you think he approached to get 33?

what I would like to read more about is the report that there were three different levels of spiritual wives - (this is in Compton's book) with the lowest being something like a concubine.

[Greg Smith]

One thing you forgot to mention: Emma threw both girls/woman - Fanny and Eliza out of the house after a heated argument with Joseph. Don't you think Joseph should have gotten things straightened out with Emma before he started bringing these ladies into his life, instead of keeping his fingers crossed and a wait and see attitude which as we look back caused so much pain and frustration for these women.

What makes you think Joseph didn't "get things straightened out with Emma" first?

There seems to be this perception that Emma didn't know anything about all this, and that she only found out relatively late in the process. This is understandable, since Mormon Enigma, the biography of Emma, makes a lot of claims along these lines:

* Emma had apparently believed that the issue of other wives was closed and hoped that it lay forever at rest. (p. 96-97)

* Emma, who had not yet been taught the doctrine, seemed oblivious to the code words. (date from text puts this at about April-May 1842, see p. 113)

* "No record exists of Joseph teaching the full theological backdrop for plural marriage before coming to Nauvoo, and two years would pass before he attempted to explain it to Emma." (p. 100)

* He would do it then only after she had confirmed her suspicions about him and had confronted him. Emma's friends learned from their husbands that Joseph had received a revelation outlining a new order of marriage, but Emma came to it piecemeal over a number of years through circumstances that hurt and shocked her. (p. 113)

Unfortunately, there is no evidence cited for any of this, and there exists considerable against it. Emma left no accounts of what she was told, or when she was told it. And, she denied that Joseph ever taught it after his death, so it is hardly surprising that we don't have any accounts from Emma. The authors are merely presuming.

But, the April/May date cannot be correct, since Emma was already worried about the issue in Relief Society meeting minutes from 17 March 1842, and 24 March 1842.

And, Joseph taught the doctrine PUBLICLY, for crying out loud, in 1841--and Emma was one of the people who reacted afterward.

The presumption--and it is nothing BUT presumption as far as I can tell--that Emma was not taught early, and often, are flawed. They are based on no primary source evidence that I have ever seen cited. If you know of any, please point me to it.

I don't think we can trust the "Emma didn't know" line any more than we can trust her later "Joseph never taught it" line.

===

Besides, there were clearly times when Emma gave her permission (Partridge and Lawrence sisters). She knew exactly what was going on, and agreed to it.

She changed her mind later even though she taught them the doctrine, gave permission, etc.--so, why do you presume that because she was upset with (say) Eliza or Fanny that she didn't know about them?

===

As for the claim that polyandry is not anticipated in D&C 132, I think that may be too hasty. See verses 41-42.

Nor, incidentally, was Joseph obligated by D&C 132 to continue to inform Emma if she continued to oppose the matter--see verses 64-65.

===

We should remember, too, that Emma had a number of witnesses as to the reality of Joseph's prophetic call that others did not. She was present when he got the plates from Moroni, moved the plates around and felt them, and helped Joseph translate the early sections. She continued to bear that witness to the end of her life.

Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophetâ??s wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it. - Todd M. Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 261, emphasis added.

Even William Law, who was no fan of plural marriage, reported that Emma told him about D&C 132 and indicated that she believed it and felt she needed to comply. - See Mormon Enigma, 2nd ed., 161; citing Salt Lake City Tribune, 1886.

There are also a couple of later first-person reminiscenses of Emma accepting plural marriage in discussions with Joseph and others, to say nothing of witnesses like Eliza R. Snow and Zina Huntington later in Utah.

Best,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

Some will do and say anything to justify JS actions and choices as that of GOD!

Are you suggesting that those of us who believe that plural marriage was a commandment from God are lying or being disingenuous? Are we willfully distorting the data? That is a serious charge--some evidence would help me evaluate it.

Some people are realistic and see it for what it is!

It seems to me that one can be realistic about the process, and acknowledges the difficulties (and areas that we don't understand) and still conclude that that God commanded it.

At least, that is what I did.

Don't presume that those who disagree with you are irrational, or wicked, or blind. They may have access to perspectives and data which you have not yet appreciated, just as you may in their case.

We will all talk until we are blue in the face, but neither of us are going to be swayed to the other side.

I am open to being persuaded by new data, or better interpretations of old data. I'm sorry you are not.

Edited to add that ~ In the end Emma got the raw end of the deal. Not because of GOD but because of her husband! That is just not right!

Of course if God did not command plural marriage, then Emma got a bad deal. But, what if God did command it? What if it was necessary? (And, I think a strong case can be made, in historical perspective, that it WAS necessary.) You are, in other words, begging the question here.

To what degree does Emma have the right to insist that Joseph not obey God?

And how were they not forced? The prophet of the Lord stood before them threatening that an angel with a flaming sword would bring destruction upon them if they did not follow or marry him! How is that not forcing?

You've got the facts confused. Joseph never threatened anyone with an angel. He told them that HE had been threatened by an angel if HE (Joseph) did not teach and move forward with the doctrine.

So, how threatened were these women by this?

Well, Mary Rollins Lightner:

"Well, don't you think it was an angel of the Devil that told you these things?... I…shall never tell a mortal I had such a talk from a married man…" - Mary Elizabeth Lightner to Emmeline B. Wells, summer 1905; "Remarks," Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner given at BYU, 14 April 1905, typescript, BYU, and "The Life and testimony of Mary E. Lightner," Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine (July 1926): 1–44; cited by Mormon Enigma, 2nd ed., 101 . See mention in Compton, 212 and Bachman, 146-147;

And:

I said if the Lord told You such a thing, why dont he come and tell Me? Furthermore, I never would consent to be sealed to him, unless I had a witness for myself. - Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Autobiography, Susa Young Gates Collection, UHI, 18-22, 24-25; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham.

Then, she sees an angel:

One night I retired to Bed, but not to sleep; for my mind was troubled so sleep fled from me...When a great light appeared in the Room thinking the Kindling wood was on fire, that was spread on the hearth; I rose up in Bed to look, when lo, a Personage stood in front of the Bed looking at me. Its clothes were whiter than anything I had ever seen, I could look at its Person, but when I saw its face so bright, and more beautiful than any Earthly <being> Could be, and those eyes pearcing me through, and through…

After receiving other Testimonies, I felt I could no longer disbelieve… - Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Autobiography, Susa Young Gates Collection, UHI, 18-22, 24-25; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham.

The best part of the story is that she doesn't tell Joseph right away. He asks her a few days later if she has an answer, and at first she lies and says, "No." He then says something like, "That's funny, the angel promised me you have gotten your witness." Then, she confesses what she had seen.

Emily Partridge told Joseph to "shut up" about it before he could teach her, and he did--for months. Emily then said she got a testimony of the words Joseph WOULD HAVE SAID, and then Joseph tells her the angel has told him that she has the witness.

When he tells Lucy Walker, after a period, that she must decide by the next day, this 16-year-old tells him off:

“Although you are a prophet of God you could not induce me to take a step of so great importance, unless I know that God approved of my course. I would rather die. I have tried to pray but received no comfort, no light.” and emphatically forbid him speaking to me again on this subject. Every feeling of my soul revolted against it. Said I, “The same God who sent this message is the Being I have worshipped from my early childhood and He must manifest His will to me.”

- Danel W. Bachman, “A Study of the Mormon Practice of Polygamy Before the Death of Joseph Smith,” (1975) (unpublished M.A. thesis, Purdue University) (copy on file with author), 148.

NOTE: Compton and others merely summarize this part, and don't provide it in all its forcefulness--not surprising, since it argues against their thesis.

So, what does Joseph do? Pour on the guilt? Use his prophetic charisma? Hardly:

He walked across the room, returned, and stood before me. With the most beautiful expression of countenance, he said, “God almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that peace and joy that you never knew.”

My room became filled with a heavenly influence. To me it was in comparison like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud…My Soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that I never knew. Supreme happiness took possession of my whole being. And I received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the marriage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage.’ Which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the Joy and grattitude that filled my Soul. As I descended the stairs, Prest. Smith opened the door below; took me by the hand and said: ‘Thank God, you have the testimony. I too, have prayed.’ He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with Every blessing my heart could possibly desire.

So, how does Joseph manipulate her into peace and joy, an "irristable testimony"? How does he "dupe" these women? They refuse to believe, and are quite frank about it, until they have experiences which they cannot deny.

Why do we assume they were stupid, or lying, or dependent on men, or manipulated?

I think these accounts are both inspiring and moving--because they show revelation, but they also show strong women determined not to take anyone's word for anything, save God.

Best,

Greg

[Kenngo1969]

I think these accounts are both inspiring and moving--because they show revelation, but they also show strong women determined not to take anyone's word for anything, save God.

Which is why we must, at all costs, prevent these women from speaking from the dust for themselves!

[karl61]

You've got the facts confused. Joseph never threatened anyone with an angel. He told them that HE had been threatened by an angel if HE (Joseph) did not teach and move forward with the doctrine.

So, how threatened were these women by this?

Best,

Greg

"54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law"

kindest regards,

Karl

[Greg Smith]

"54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law"

kindest regards,

Karl

Ah, I see. So we're not talking about ALL the women, then, we're just talking about Emma?

Yet, the evidence would seem to show that Emma did not consider such a "threat" to be sufficient to keep her from resisting plural marriage, no?

Best,

Greg

[Maidservant]

Reading these accounts, and Greg's very perceptive presentation, I have had the thought come to me -- for what it is worth -- that the purpose of polygamy has nothing (" ") to do with marriage and everything to do with communicating directly with God. The women (and men) were faced with an impossible situation and choice then their opportunity for faith was brought to a 'do-or-die' point so to speak. "God WILL speak to me, or I won't choose this!" And God is saying, "Exactly." Women were taught directly by God, making them in that principle, prophets, and preparing men and women who had at least one experience of direct communication from God -- of course there was never one experience of communing with God, it grew from there for that individual. In that type of refining fire, He had a whole group of men and women who knew Him personally and who were prepared to establish the foundation of His kingdom through all hazards.

[karl61]

Ah, I see. So we're not talking about ALL the women, then, we're just talking about Emma?

Yet, the evidence would seem to show that Emma did not consider such a "threat" to be sufficient to keep her from resisting plural marriage, no?

Best,

Greg

little things likely can be considered a threat. If I remember right Herber C. Kimball's daughter was told how much it would help her family if the fourteen year old married Joseph Smith; if she didn't "the gate would be closed for ever", which when heard, made her very angry.

as to Emma, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" , I don't know who said that...maybe it was Joseph.

[karl61]

Reading these accounts, and Greg's very perceptive presentation, I have had the thought come to me -- for what it is worth -- that the purpose of polygamy has nothing (" ") to do with marriage and everything to do with communicating directly with God. The women (and men) were faced with an impossible situation and choice then their opportunity for faith was brought to a 'do-or-die' point so to speak. "God WILL speak to me, or I won't choose this!" And God is saying, "Exactly." Women were taught directly by God, making them in that principle, prophets, and preparing men and women who had at least one experience of direct communication from God -- of course there was never one experience of communing with God, it grew from there for that individual. In that type of refining fire, He had a whole group of men and women who knew Him personally and who were prepared to establish the foundation of His kingdom through all hazards.

If anyone deserved a special dream, a visit from the Holy Ghost, a visit from an angel or even God himself, it should have been Emma, telling her polygamy for okay.

[Nighthawke]

I am not talking just sex here. The emotional trauma of having to share your spouse or give them up to another in the next life just does not seem right or fair in any way.

In a letter to one of her sons, Helen Mar writes about a recent dream. In her dream, she is married to someone else and writes that, after the wedding; ". . . I went home to get a few articles which I wanted to take with me. Your Pa met me, and was going to embrace me, but I put his arm away informing him that I was the wife of another- just then my husband entered the door & I introduced them- he put his hand out to shake hands but your pa spurned it, and gave him such a look of bitter hatred and was like one going mad. When I saw how desperate he was I reproved him telling him there was no use of giving away like that- to be a man, & realize that he has two other wives & a large family to live for and it would be no earthly use for him to carry on in this reckless way, that he knew why I had taken this step and it could not be altered. . . . The love between me & my last husband was not like the passionate love of youth, but was of a more pure & exalted kind and this feeling seemed to increase between us every day. It was so comforting to me to think how happy I would be in my new home and I could read his nature from the first and thought the way to win him was to humour his peculiarities."

You'd think if Helen was traumatized by plural marriage she's be having nightmares about it; and yet the opposite is true. Her letter continues, she writes that this man, after she has passed away, "at last will escort me to my last home, where there will be nothing to mar my happiness."

Contrary to your opinion it seems like Helen felt that nothing would mar her happiness in the next life.

- Helen Mar Kimball Whitney Family Papers, (1841-1900) (Coll Mss 179, Box 1, Fd 5). Utah State University,

Special Collections & Archives, Merrill-Cazier Library

[Nighthawke]

I think that different people respond differently for their own personal reasons. I just don't comprehend how someone is duped into believing it is or ever was a righteous principle. It just does not stand to reason in my mind or heart!

I do wonder how many women would stand 100% behind the principle if it was brought back into practice in our lifetimes... or men. Reading and living are 2 completely different things. You may say you have studied and prayed, but until you have been faced with it how can you defend it so wholeheartedly?

Are your comments adressed to me? I don't believe that I am defending plural marriage wholeheartedly, I'm just posting a few quotations by plural wives. They would be the ones defending it wholeheartedly.

[blueadept]

But, what if God did command it? What if it was necessary? (And, I think a strong case can be made, in historical perspective, that it WAS necessary.) You are, in other words, begging the question here.

To what degree does Emma have the right to insist that Joseph not obey God?

Would you mind expanding on 'And, I think a strong case can be made, in historical perspective, that it WAS necessary.'??

The best defense I've seen for polygamy, polyandry is doing it because God commanded it which as a non member is taken with a grain of salt. What, in your opinion, is the historical perspective?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Deborah]

If anyone deserved a special dream, a visit from the Holy Ghost, a visit from an angel or even God himself, it should have been Emma, telling her polygamy for okay.

Considering that Emma did accept additional wives it would appear that she did receive personal revelation of the principle, regardless of how she felt about it and later denounced it.

[Calm]

Edited to add that ~ In the end Emma got the raw end of the deal. Not because of GOD but because of her husband! That is just not right!

Quite possibly. Many women and men do end up getting the raw end of the deal due to their spouses' behaviour. There are a lot of sacrifices and compromises that get made in marriages, even the best ones.

Not only did Emma suffer with polygamy, she suffered separation from her own family, death of her children, great financial hardship, having to share her husband due to his church and civic duties....

She chose to marry Joseph in spite of huge opposition from her family. She chose to remain with him in spite of huge costs to herself and their children during their marriage...

What was Emma's final choice in the matter? Is there any indication that she ever regretted her choices over the long run? Did she ever actually leave (I suspect her father and family would have welcomed her back with her children quite happily anytime considering his comments)? Is there good evidence out there that she expressed doubt about Joseph's prophetic calling?

Apparently from her actions, Emma felt the marriage had enough value in other ways that she stayed with him and according to family sources loved him to her dying day as Joseph did her.

Emma knew Joseph better than any of us, imo. She knew what was going on both in public and behind the scenes better than we do even at times she didn't know all that Joseph did. I don't know of any evidence that we have now that she didn't have available sometime in her life...yet she remained in her heart with Joseph.

Again, I choose to rely on what the women who went through it chose for themselves instead of what I would choose for myself. I am not sure why it is so hard to let them live with what came of their own choices if they were content with them overall.