Lamanite Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Just wondering if someone can tell me where the idea came from regarding first, second, third etc. wives? Big UP!Lamanite
Lamanite Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Looking for info that may support the idea that there is a "pecking" order when it comes to women who were involved in 19th century Mormon polygamy. Has there ever been a Church teaching that would have taught there is rank, importance, and authority relating to polygamous wives based on chronological order of marriage? Or perhaps Wives were all equal in position, responsibility, and importance? Is this idea a social construct or one with Prophetic/Divine origins? Would any of this affect multiple sealings of Men to Women performed today?Just looking for authoritative or historical commentary regarding this aspect of Polygamy.Big UP!Lamanite Edited July 10, 2012 by Lamanite
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Besides the reference to the first wife in the D&C, I remember hearing that in some marriages the first wife was present and gave the plural wives to her husband. Not sure if that is accurate or not. As far as a pecking order, outside of the sealing ceremony, I have only heard on occasion of complaint where one wife felt that another got preferential treatment who didn't deserve it as a 'newer' wife, but it sounded more like they thought treatment should be equal rather than any hierarchy determined by seniority of marriage.I haven't read anything online that I remember; your best bet, imo, is to write FAIR and ask there as there are several who have done extensive research into plural marriage, even published in that topic or intend to, and they may be able to help you.I will let you do it so you will likely get more responses than if I did it and then reported back here. Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Lamanite:I don't believe there was a pecking order, or at least there shouldn't have been.
Bob Crockett Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Leah, the first wife, persecuted Rachel, the second wife. Pecking order established by scripture.
ERayR Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Leah, the first wife, persecuted Rachel, the second wife. Pecking order established by scripture.Nope. Pecking order established by human nature. 1
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Hagar, the second wife, persecuted Sarah, the first wife, who then returned the favour....got to go with ERayR's analysis.According to tradition, Hannah was the first wife and she was persecuted by Elkanah's second wife, Peninnah for being childless. Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah
Lamanite Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) I was pretty sure that most of the "rankings" could be attributed to human nature or some type of social construct. However, I wasn't sure if there were specific "rights" or "blessings" granted to the 1st wife, e.g. claims to the husband during the resurrection, blessings given during Endowments or 2nd Anointings, offspring etc.I will send something to FAIR.Big UP!Lamanite Edited July 10, 2012 by Lamanite
cinepro Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) If the first wife's consent was required for the addition of additional wives to the family*, I suspect the "idea" for seniority came as one of practicality.*Not counting Emma. Edited July 10, 2012 by cinepro
Lamanite Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) If there is support for this idea I'm looking to draw a parallel to todays practice of sealing multiple women to a single man and multiple men to a single women. I just went through Devery Anderson's "Development of LDS Temple Worship" and couldn't find any relevant entries.Also dug through Buergers stuff thinking maybe something in Nauvoo period in the Endowment or 2nd Annointing, but didn't get much. Don't get me wrong, the ritual and theology coming out of the Nauvoo period is amazing, unfortunately I couldn't find much that spells out the rules or origins of Plural marriage.Anyone think that there may be something in ISL?Big UP!Lamanite Edited July 10, 2012 by Lamanite
Closet Doubter Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I had always been taught that the first wife had to give her permission for the husband to take a second wife which therefore gave the first wife a level of importance that other wives couldn't attain. Then about 10 years ago there was an actual lesson on polygamy in Gospel Doctrine class (the only one I have ever seen). A member of the ward raised his hand and told us about his great-great-grandfather who served a mission in Europe and came home with a second wife unbeknownst to his first wife. His great-great-grandmother painted a line down the middle of the house and let her husband and his second wife know that neither of them were to ever cross that line and she stuck to her resolve. After that, I read again section 132 and noticed the verse that states the first wife needs to approve but if she doesn't, then the man can take the polygamous wife anyway because the first wife is not being rightous (paraphrased but read the verse and you will see the meaning is the same).
cinepro Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) After that, I read again section 132 and noticed the verse that states the first wife needs to approve but if she doesn't, then the man can take the polygamous wife anyway because the first wife is not being rightous (paraphrased but read the verse and you will see the meaning is the same).I'm pretty sure the condition limits this option to Joseph Smith (and subsequent key holding prophets):64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.Doctrine and Covenants 132 (emphasis added) Edited July 10, 2012 by cinepro
Closet Doubter Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I'm pretty sure the condition limits this option to Joseph Smith (and subsequent key holding prophets):You must be right. The good brother that shared the information about his great-great-grandparents must have been lying for some reason even though I had always known him to be very honest and active in the Church.
phaedrus ut Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Another consideration to the question is who is the first wife? Is it the civil marriage or the sealing? Emma was Joseph's first wife but she was his 20 something sealing. His first sealing would be either Fanny Alger in 1833 ,or Lucinda Morgan Harris in 1838, or at the very latest Louisa Beaman in 1841. Joseph wasn't sealed to Emma until May of 1843.Which of Joseph Wives are considered his First Wife for plural marriage permission?Phaedrus
Lamanite Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 Another consideration to the question is who is the first wife? Is it the civil marriage or the sealing? Emma was Joseph's first wife but she was his 20 something sealing. His first sealing would be either Fanny Alger in 1833 ,or Lucinda Morgan Harris in 1838, or at the very latest Louisa Beaman in 1841. Joseph wasn't sealed to Emma until May of 1843.Which of Joseph Wives are considered his First Wife for plural marriage permission?PhaedrusGood point. As I went through Devery's research it was interesting to see how these types of questions were constantly addressed and revised and then revisited again.Big UP!Lamanite
The Nehor Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Leah, the first wife, persecuted Rachel, the second wife. Pecking order established by scripture.Why they haven't made this story into some kind of comedy is beyond me. Jacob thinks he is marrying a veiled Rachel one evening, takes her back to his tent in the dark, and consummates the marriage. Then in the morning he wakes up next to his beloved's sister. The Bible failed by not providing an account of the look on his face. I always feel bad for Leah. Caught in a very difficult situation.
Recommended Posts