On Sweeping Polygamy under the Rug

[DanGB]

In my opinion, there is no reason for the Church to hang on to polygamist history. First, we don't practice it now so dwelling on it serves no purpose. Discussing the issue can upset wives and create conflict and if- that's a big IF - the Lord did bring polygam back in OUR time, how many of us would be prepared to embrace it? It's not that people wouldn't tolerate multiple wives, after all we even have same-sex marriage nowadays so having more than one wife shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

Our modern women would not tolerate polygamy whereas most LDS women in the 1800's did. What LDS woman do you know today who would look forward to being one of many wives in THIS Church?

Like President Hickley said during an interview, "that's behind us now."

From a different perspective, I think it may be more of a foundational issue. In that I mean the strength of the platform the Church builds itself from . A strong foundation is generally associated with a strong structure. Since we are a Church that prides itself in revelation and continuous communication with our heavenly Father, one must ask why we should ever be embarrassed about a revelation from God. Even if not practiced today, if we believed it enriched us and our foundation, we should revel in it as part of a strong foundation.

But my guess is that the powers to be in the Church don't seem to find it helpful to our foundation and as Pres Hinckley said: "that's behind us now". And distancing the Church from this past is the obvious choice of Church leaders today as a way of not weakening the foundation.

Is it sweeping it under the rug? Well it's certainly not reveling in the glory of continuing revelation - a supposed strength of our foundation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Cinepro is right. It's disingenuous to say that those biographical sketches are forthcoming in regards to Polygamy. Joseph Smith's sketch has no mention... at all, yet they include events that are less then significant, please. Are those biographical sketches just milk before meat?

And what do you make of the fact that the John Taylor bio states that Congress passed legislation disenfranchising polygamous Church members during his presidency, that President Taylor was obliged to flee from federal marshals intent on arresting him for practicing plural marriage, and that President Taylor was forced to live out his life in hiding for that reason? Do you buy Cinepro's weak conjecture that these things are present in the bio because they "slipped by the editing process"? I was embarrassed for Cinepro; I thought he was far brighter than that.

[tsubotsubo]

I just want to mention that a lot of people are saying "No mormons are ashamed of polygamy", or "All mormons are embarrassed by it, so avoid mentioning it".

I think it's a mixture, and this discussion won't go very far if we're going to make sweeping generalizations. It's a bit of both. There are some that are ashamed about it, and will be nervous if anybody tries to discuss it with them. There are those that embrace polygamy, but only talk about it when relevant (i.e. from time to time).

There are other types of mormon attitudes to polygamy aswell. There's those that are obsessed with it. They bring it up at every opportunity. They start the same discussions about polygamy every week in Sunday School, when it usually has nothing to do with the lesson. There are also some that simply don't know about it. Particularly with people new to mormonism (young primary children, new converts), and they, naturally, presume that mormons had one wife (but get accused of lieing for doing this). However, after spending a few years in the church, as an active member, I believe it's almost impossible not to find out about it.

There are many other attitudes to polygamy that aren't so common, and there's many people that share qualities of more than one attitude.

But basically, nobody here will be able to think of one theory which covers all mormons.

[Redefined]

I just want to mention that a lot of people are saying "No mormons are ashamed of polygamy", or "All mormons are embarrassed by it, so avoid mentioning it".

I think it's a mixture, and this discussion won't go very far if we're going to make sweeping generalizations. It's a bit of both. There are some that are ashamed about it, and will be nervous if anybody tries to discuss it with them. There are those that embrace polygamy, but only talk about it when relevant (i.e. from time to time).

There are other types of mormon attitudes to polygamy aswell. There's those that are obsessed with it. They bring it up at every opportunity. They start the same discussions about polygamy every week in Sunday School, when it usually has nothing to do with the lesson. There are also some that simply don't know about it. Particularly with people new to mormonism (young primary children, new converts), and they, naturally, presume that mormons had one wife (but get accused of lieing for doing this). However, after spending a few years in the church, as an active member, I believe it's almost impossible not to find out about it.

There are many other attitudes to polygamy that aren't so common, and there's many people that share qualities of more than one attitude.

But basically, nobody here will be able to think of one theory which covers all mormons.

These variations that you have mentioned shouldn't exist. It's about the church's accountability of giving these truths to its members and potential members so that they can make informed decisions. And when the member defends the church's history with polygamy, he/she shouldn't have to find out that their loyalty is to a church that they don't even know.

[notHagoth7]

These variations that you have mentioned shouldn't exist. It's about the church's accountability of giving these truths to its members and potential members so that they can make informed decisions. And when the member defends the church's history with polygamy, he/she shouldn't have to find out that their loyalty is to a church that they don't even know.

I could see why one might make such a statement. But why should people to be forced to learn about elements of history that don't interest them?

Should baptists be forced to learn about early Anabaptist bigamy?

Should Protestants be forced to learn about what Luther and Melancthon thought/said/did regarding bigamy?

Should all Jews, Muslims, and Christians have to sit through extensive classes about the bigamy of Abraham?

Should all Jews and Christians have to sit through extensive classes about the bigamy of Jacob and others?

And as a part of citizenship, should all northern Europeans be forced to sit through classes to learn about the early practice of bigamy in their nations?

If so, why?

If not, why the double standard?

[Chaos]

If you have told everybody how you feel about polygamy move on. We don't need to hear it again.

[Olavarria]

Mormons talking about plural marriage is like Jews talking about animal sacrifice. It's not a mere superfluity; but how does it apply to today? If I can only have one wife, why even talk about it?

[Jaybear]

If I can only have one wife, why even talk about it?

To honor the men and women who risked their lives and reputation in obedience to God's commandment.

To prepare for the day when polgyamy is legal, and the advice provided by the manifesto become moot.

To inoculate. Many people have left your faith after learning some of the gritty details of the practice, ie the lies, the marriages to teenage girls and married women, the smearing of the reputation of women who rejected the teaching.

To better understand God's will and desire.

To better understand the concept of eternal marriage, family, and exhalation.

To better understand the importance of obedience.

To get a better understanding of the rich and complex life lived by your most beloved prophet.

Or how bout this one... so that people won't accuse Mormons of being embarrassed by their history.

[Deborah]

Or how bout this one... so that people won't accuse Mormons of being embarrassed by their history.

And you really think that's all it would take to get people to stop accusing Mormons of something? If it wasn't this issue it's something else (we have a thread going with an accusation about a gun that was kept hidden).

Polygamy just makes an easy target and it doesn't matter if we talk about it or not. The irony is we do talk about it in certain venues. But it isn't something that is practiced now and hasn't been for well over a hundred years. Those who are members of the church who use this as an excuse to leave need to examine themselves and what it is they think they once believed and why it is they would let something like this destroy what the already had and why they didn't heed the church's admonition to continue in learning.

[Jeff K.]

To honor the men and women who risked their lives and reputation in obedience to God's commandment.

Which polygamist from the church has not been honored?

To prepare for the day when polgyamy is legal, and the advice provided by the manifesto become moot.

That would be an arrogant presumption to know the mind of God, whether legal or not, accepted or not, it will be the will of God that we should prepare for, not the will of man. Whatever that might be.

To inoculate. Many people have left your faith after learning some of the gritty details of the practice, ie the lies, the marriages to teenage girls and married women, the smearing of the reputation of women who rejected the teaching.

One would have to believe that polygamy plays such an important part of the gospel as to overshadow the testimony of its truth beyond all other measure, eternal marriage, the atonement, eternal progression, families that can love each other and be together forever. Supposed deceptions, and sealings to various people have been explained here and other places, they are not the core of the church, some want it to be the core, and of course they seek the ultimate destruction of Joseph Smith in hopes of dashing the truth of the church, giving those who hate the church a sense of shadenfreude and self justification. Such a view is an error, an error in the definition of importance that people outside the church who desire its downfall often make. Many people leave our faith because they lose their testimony, some of them decide that it is polygamy, most though will grasp any excuse rather than self examination. It is the nature of man to do this. Man's nature tends not to reflect the accuracy of the facts but the preception of ones self in order to preserve self ego. The scriptures speak of it and the horrid day for man when self decption is stripped from us all.

To better understand God's will and desire.

The prophets and the spirit both already lead us in that direction. Such a singular desire is held by all. Those who hate the church seek no such direction, God long ago would have chastised them for the spirit they desire to follow. Hate is not of God.

To better understand the concept of eternal marriage, family, and exhalation.

See above. How is it a man understands eternal marriage, family and exhaltation with many wives but not with one? Whether it be one wife or many, the same principles apply.

To better understand the importance of obedience.

Given the rebellious and hateful nature of the many attacks upon the saints by some posters here, the attacks upon the church and the heaped ridicule, it is doubtful that they share anything of consequence to share in understanding the importance of obedience. Obedience is best learned by humbly adhereing to the directions of the prophet apostles and sacred works.

To get a better understanding of the rich and complex life lived by your most beloved prophet.

I suggest you read "Rough Stone Rolling", then you can mark that one off your list.

Or how bout this one... so that people won't accuse Mormons of being embarrassed by their history.

No one who is honest believes that the accusation will not remain, regardless of how much information is presented. The accusations will go on, not because the accusations are the heart of the matter, but the hatred of the church, and consequently those who follow its beliefs. Disclosure is irrelevant to those people.

[DanGB]

Which polygamist from the church has not been honored?

Well at least on a relative basis, and in the Church's own official website, all of the polygamist wives of our prophets who practiced polygamy. While all the of the monogamous wives ,and thier marriages, are given the due recognition as a "significant event", polygamist wives get no mention at all on the same site.

I believe at the very minimum, this is a dishonor to those faithful women.

[Brenda]

I feel that the critics have a doublestandsrd when critizising LDS plural marriage. I ahve nto heard them go against devorces and new mariages equally ahrd. What else those are than plural marriages? In tehm just today ther is usually only one woman in the mans home at the time. In some cases the man even moves between a couple of women allt eh time and theya re not even married... ansTHIS is completely ok... isnt it!

What critics really mean is that WE dont TALK about the plural marriage the way THEY want to! In other words, we do not condemt JS for it and call him names... how could we, as far as we KNOW it WAS a command from God and a strict one too!

We can talk about it days on end, but they will keep saying we sweep it under a rug... just because we dont think or speak about it the way they do! Some critics have got their maskin fastened in one thing only...

Excellent point, Maya.

[Jeff K.]

Well at least on a relative basis, and in the Church's own official website, all of the polygamist wives of our prophets who practiced polygamy. While all the of the monogamous wives ,and thier marriages, are given the due recognition as a "significant event", polygamist wives get no mention at all on the same site.

I believe at the very minimum, this is a dishonor to those faithful women.

I think that is more a judgement of the patriarchial 19th century and not about polygamy. On a general platform I do agree that women in general, everywhere, have been given short shrift in regards to honorable history from that period of history. But I would argue the same for most such eras.

[Calm]

Many people have left your faith after learning some of the gritty details of the practice......the marriages to teenage girls and married women, the smearing of the reputation of women who rejected the teaching.

I can understand leaving the Church if one disagreed with the treatment of those who rejected the principle (though I would hope that there would be more to the reason for leaving than that). It is strange though, OTOH to claim to respect the women and men who faithfully practiced the principle but then turn around and use what happened to them to justify your own departure from the faith. These were men and women who received their own personal witness, whose testimony was strong and who were willing to sacrifice much that was precious to them to gain that which was most precious---and yet this faithful aspect of their lives is rejected, at times even harshly or mockingly with accusations that they were weak enough to be brainwashed or ignorant enough to be duped...even while claiming one is doing so because of the respect these people deserve.

Why wouldn't one show respect by trusting in their testimonies about the reality of their visions and spiritual confirmations of plural marriage as well as respect for the remarkable lives they were able to create, often beautiful and harmonious rather than trashing them as living in some sort of bondage or evil existence?

Me, I prefer to rely on the writings of the "teenage girls and married women" for my look into their lives and what plural marriage meant for them and not on some gut reaction of myself or others about how unfair or horrible the life supposedly was.

[Jaybear]

I can understand leaving the Church if one disagreed with the treatment of those who rejected the principle. It is strange though, OTOH to claim to respect the women and men who faithfully practiced the principle but then turn around and use what happened to them to justify your own departure from the faith.

Its really quite simple. Some people, upon learning about the gritty detail, begin to question whether Smith was honest and trustworthy in his dealings with his wife, these women, their husbands, and the other members of the LDS Church. Those that conclude that he was not ... well they obviously had a preexisting desire to sin, and are simply using these newly learned facts to justify their sin.

[Calm]

Well at least on a relative basis, and in the Church's own official website, all of the polygamist wives of our prophets who practiced polygamy. While all the of the monogamous wives ,and thier marriages, are given the due recognition as a "significant event", polygamist wives get no mention at all on the same site.

I believe at the very minimum, this is a dishonor to those faithful women.

I wouldn't call it a dishonour as it isn't trashing them, but I can see it as being a lack of honour. However, there are likely reasons for it (I don't think it is simply that it never occurred to someone to list them) and until those specifics are made public, I don't see how one can judge whether it is inappropriate or not. I can think of many worthwhile reasons to not make plural marriage appear as just one more historical aspect of our faith (having heard stories of how individuals have been seduced into joining polygamous sects at times by claiming the Church knows what is going on but is turning a blind eye so that the principle can continue to be practiced as allegedly commanded...and this succeeds for some even with public condemnations and excommunications well known for most) as well as many worthwhile reasons to include the information (including honouring the people engaged in it).

And I think it would be important in judgment to look at it from the women's POV, would they be satisfied with the reasons for not posting their names or not.

After numerous discussions with many LDS and nonLDS Christians and nonChristians on the board on this and other issues, it is obvious to me at least that many have problems with reconciling the differences that exist in God's commandments for different times in the world and in the Faith. There are those that assume that as soon as polygamy becomes legal in the world that the Church will automatically reinstate it. There are others who spend extensive efforts on justifying their particular interpretation and making predictions about how it's going to play out. There are even some who make the issue part of the list of who they will consider for spouses.

And this confusion and at times obsession is with a pretty mimimal presence of plural marriage discussion within the 'confines' of the Church (meaning the standard arenas where most LDS discuss their faith as opposed to us nerds who hang out on boards and other places). It appears to be a subject that fascinates people for better or worse over and above whether or not it is a commandment (I don't see as much emotion or rejection of the Church based on Word of Wisdom or Chastity issues in contrast), gaining it more attention even before one starts examining the details of the practice and how the commandment should have been properly followed.

My personal belief is that the decision to not include in significant detail all aspects of plural marriage---as opposed to the most often general statements that currently exist---is a thoughtful, prayerful one (because this is how I would go about it and how most leaders I've known would likely go about having heard them discuss the process when confronted with confusing issues) based on the needs of our people in the here and now...and that may mean requiring those of the past one last sacrifice of anonymity, at least for a little while longer. For many of the current leaders this includes past members of their own family, so I doubt that it is a decision they treat lightly.

[DanGB]

I think that is more a judgement of the patriarchial 19th century and not about polygamy. On a general platform I do agree that women in general, everywhere, have been given short shrift in regards to honorable history from that period of history. But I would argue the same for most such eras.

And this partiarchial judgement ironically and suddenly changed in the Church website, (which is a modern day website btw) with the first Church Prophet to practice monagamy? Convenient, but not really addressing the obvious in this website.

[Jeff K.]

I was speaking from the standpoint of how much information was available or left available from primary sources of the time.

I don't see the issue as being that large, a website alone doesn't create doctrine, honor or a number of other things one might deem more important.

[Calm]

Its really quite simple. Some people, upon learning about the gritty detail, begin to question whether Smith was honest and trustworthy in his dealings with his wife, these women, their husbands, and the other members of the LDS Church. Those that conclude that he was not ... well they obviously had a preexisting desire to sin, and are simply using these newly learned facts to justify their sin.

If your response actually dealt with the substance of my comment, I would respond in more detail...but since it didn't.....

[Deborah]

Its really quite simple. Some people, upon learning about the gritty detail, begin to question whether Smith was honest and trustworthy in his dealings with his wife, these women, their husbands, and the other members of the LDS Church.

And I think this accusation was answered by Calmoriah when she said "Why wouldn't one show respect by trusting in their testimonies about the reality of their visions and spiritual confirmations of plural marriage as well as respect for the remarkable lives they were able to create, often beautiful and harmonious rather than trashing them as living in some sort of bondage or evil existence?"

The people who lived this principle are the ones we should be listening to, especially when it was so hard for them to do so. But some would rather listen to the Mormon-haters who like to presume from the limited fragments of history on the subject what was in the minds of people over a hundred years ago.

[DanGB]

I was speaking from the standpoint of how much information was available or left available from primary sources of the time.

My point is that the information for names and dates of marriages for the polygamist wives is just as easy to provide in this website as it is for monogamous marriages. The information exists and is just as easy to source. The fact that only monagamous marriages are mentioed is more telling to the Church's attitude towards, and desire to distance itself from, it's polygamous past. At least from official sources provided to the public. What other reasonable explanation is there in not giving the least bit of recgnition to these wives who served their Prophet, husband, and Church faithfully?

[Jaybear]

If your response actually dealt with the substance of my comment, I would respond in more detail...but since it didn't.....

You are wrong. It was squarely on point. The substance of your comment is based on a false premise: "to claim to respect the women and men who faithfully practiced the principle..."

The members who leave because they learn unpleasant fact about polygamy aren't leaving because they claim to respect these women, they are leaving because they personally lost respect and trust for Joseph Smith. To them, the fact that Smith convinced others that it was God's will that he marry teenagers, marry women, and mislead Emma, the public and other members is simply irrelevant.

[Deborah]

To them, the fact that Smith convinced others that it was God's will that he marry teenagers, marry women, and mislead Emma, the public and other members is simply irrelevant.

But in having such an attitude they are still insulting those who followed Joseph, only after much prayer and receiving an answer to do so. In other words no one entered into this just on the words of the Prophet and members of the church should understand this if no one else does. Therefore by saying Joseph deceived them they are denigrating those who willingly accepted the practice.

[Calm]

The fact that only monagamous marriages are mentioed is more telling to the Church's attitude towards, and desire to distance itself from, it's polygamous past. At least from official sources provided to the public.

I think that is an assumption that may or may not be true.

What other reasonable explanation is there in not giving the least bit of recgnition to these wives who served their Prophet, husband, and Church faithfully?

One I can think of is to avoid unintentional encouragement of any inclination to the practice or even just an unhealthy fascination about it at this time (we have plenty of other things we HAVE to deal with that lead to church hobbies such as Word of Wisdom....)

[Calm]

You are wrong. It was squarely on point. The substance of your comment is based on a false premise: "to claim to respect the women and men who faithfully practiced the principle..."

It's not a false premise if I am only discussing those who claim their issue with plural marriage is based on respect for the women and men who faithfully practiced the principle.....

the fact that Smith convinced others that it was God's will

And if one sincerely respected these people, it seems to me that they would take these individuals' words that it wasn't Smith that convinced them but the Spirit.

Now those who don't respect them can trash them all they want without appearing to be claiming to hold a standard that there is little evidence of....but I wasn't talking about that group.