Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[CASteinman]

I believe there is polygamy in the hereafter because it's being done here on this earth when men are widowed and marry again in the temple, they keep their first wife also. It's as simple as that, easy peasy.

I agree. I also think I don't really know a huge amount about the celestial kingdom. I wish I knew more about it and the people there.

[Libs]

Slowly, quietly, the church over the years began to prefer that members not speak of these things.

Palerider, it does seem that the church does not speak of polygamy, at least, in church meetings, very often. That has been one of my major complaints. I really would have preferred hearing some of the things I heard about Joseph Smith's polygamy, in the church, instead of from critics.

But, I think the way you have worded it makes it sound like a "coverup" (which, perhaps, you believe to be true, but most active members would find that offensive). Really, it could be just a matter of priorities, since polygamy is no longer actively practiced, here on earth?

[why me]

I believe there is polygamy in the hereafter because it's being done here on this earth when men are widowed and marry again in the temple, they keep their first wife also. It's as simple as that, easy peasy.

True enough. And I would hope that the men before they are sealed to their second wife have prayed about it and received a positive answer. If not, they may not have the first wife in the hereafter.

As a sidebar, this is also a good topic for lds couples. Every man should ask his wife if she would mind him taking a second wife if she passed away first.

[why me]

Palerider, it does seem that the church does not speak of polygamy, at least, in church meetings, very often. That has been one of my major complaints. I really would have preferred hearing some of the things I heard about Joseph Smith's polygamy, in the church, instead of from critics.

And of course, you can discuss this at church if you so wished. I see nothing wrong with a member wanting to discuss polygamy at church, especially with their friends. Or in class if the occasion warranted it.

[Calm]

True enough. And I would hope that the men before they are sealed to their second wife have prayed about it and received a positive answer. If not, they may not have the first wife in the hereafter.

As a sidebar, this is also a good topic for lds couples. Every man should ask his wife if she would mind him taking a second wife if she passed away first.

And every woman should ask her husband the same thing since if it about being with all the spouses one has loved through one's life, who have made mortality meaningful and therefore will add meaning to immortality, then it is just as likely that women will be eternally sealed to all their husbands in the CK. We are even doing the ordinances for all husbands if so desired after death. If these multiple sealings of a woman don't have eternal significance, then why would the sealings of a man have any more significance and instead he would simply choose the wife he desires to be with the most as the woman is forced to do by the concept of women being only allowed one eternal husband.

[why me]

And every woman should ask her husband the same thing since if it about being with all the spouses one has loved through one's life, who have made mortality meaningful and therefore will add meaning to immortality, then it is just as likely that women will be eternally sealed to all their husbands in the CK. We are even doing the ordinances for all husbands if so desired after death. If these multiple sealings of a woman don't have eternal significance, then why would the sealings of a man have any more significance and instead he would simply choose the wife he desires to be with the most as the woman is forced to do by the concept of women being only allowed one eternal husband.

I don't know if many couples have this discussion at all. I think that it is something that they don't want to think about: death. But it would be a necessary discussion for lds couples no matter what the age of the couples involved.

[KevinG]

Out of curiousity, what is the "appropriate" reference needed to back up this claim:

Should he spend about $75,000 to commission a poll of people that he grew up with asking them about what they knew?

Or how about this one.

I think it pretty obvious to any rational and reasonable person that Palerider was sharing his personal opinion, based his personal experience.

While I think its fair to ask why you think you are qualified to make such a statement, demanding a CFR strikes me petty and childish.

Does any here, including Selek, sincerely and honestly doubt that polygamy can be "disquieting" to the new converts? Really? If so, please raise your hand.

I would accept any public reference by anyone authoratative in the Church that says we have backed away from our polygamous history because of the embarrassment of the sisters.

I have lived in multiple wards in multiple states inside and outside of the zion curtain and I've never heard such a thing. His experience is not representative of the church.

My friends and acquaintances are not embarrassed or afraid of polygamy and the history of the Saints. If we aren't asked to live it in this life we may be in the next. My wife has prayed and prepared herself to understand the Saints of old and the principle.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Palerider, it does seem that the church does not speak of polygamy, at least, in church meetings, very often. That has been one of my major complaints. I really would have preferred hearing some of the things I heard about Joseph Smith's polygamy, in the church, instead of from critics.

But, I think the way you have worded it makes it sound like a "coverup" (which, perhaps, you believe to be true, but most active members would find that offensive). Really, it could be just a matter of priorities, since polygamy is no longer actively practiced, here on earth?

Who hasn't at least heard that LDS practiced polygamy? Heck, Despite our near constant denials our modern day detractors claim we still practice it. I still get questions about how many wives I have.

What is to be gained by pressing the point that we used to practiced polygamy, even in Church meetings? Will it help me better relate to my wife and family. Will it help me be more like Christ? Quite frankly whether Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.,etc., had one or a hundred wives it doesn't effect my salvation in the slightest.

Edited July 22, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Palerider]

O.K. For calmoriah’s sake I will say that my experiences of observing that the church seemed to begin to avoid the topic of plural marriage were not globalized. I only observed it beginning in my little Mormon town when I was growing up. And then in the South Pacific while on my mission….and then on the U.S. west coast as I was obtaining my education and later the southeastern states after being married. Other than that, the rest of the LDS world could have been doing something radically different.

As an example of what I’m talking about I’d like to use a little piece (Lesson 12 from the current Sunday School manual) from a very pro-mormon website for a little critical thinking and just ask some questions that one might give some thought. Here’s the link to the website: http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2012/04/08/in-our-ward-lesson-12-seek-ye-for-the-kingdom-of-god/

"Now we’ll go on to talk about something that we very seldom address in Sunday School, in my experience, but both the text of Jacob and the explicit instructions of the Sunday School lesson manual authorize me to teach something about this – about polygamy, or plural marriage. I first want to speak briefly about plural marriage as practiced by the Latter-day Saints more than a century ago, and then return to Jacob. And while I have little of the silver or gold that Jacob spoke of, I do have a wealth of historical knowledge and understanding that I bring to this part of the lesson, and hope that that counts for something here.

Many Latter-day Saints, especially those of us who have grown up in the Church, have absorbed some ideas about plural marriage that are not entirely historical, so I’ll run quickly through the history….

Some of the reasons you have probably heard for our practice of polygamy are simply not true: That is, polygamy was not a system instituted to take care of widows or an over-abundance of single women in Utah. There were no more women in Utah than there were men – there may even have been a slight majority of men – and there were never any great slaughters of Mormon men in Missouri or Illinois or crossing the Plains that generated large numbers of widows. True, some widows did find homes and protectors through plural marriage – but far more of the women who entered plural marriages were young women, especially those newly arrived in Utah.

And you have no doubt heard estimates than only 10%, or maybe 5%, or was it 2%, of Mormons ever practiced polygamy anyway – as if we should be ashamed of the practice and try to minimize the numbers as far as possible. But those numbers disguise as much as they reveal: They generally attempt to count the men who entered polygamy. By definition, of course, at least twice as many women practiced polygamy as men did. And whether they themselves grew up to enter plural marriage, the children of all those couples were raised in plural families. Even if any given person were a monogamist, that person had a sister, or a brother-in-law, or a daughter, in plural marriage, and probably aunts and grandchildren who lived in plural homes. Bishoprics and stake presidencies and most other leadership roles were filled by polygamists. In other words, counting the number of men with plural wives is misleading, because virtually 100% of Latter-day Saints in the West in the second half of the 19th century were intimately affected by plural marriage. It defined who we were and shaped our society in every way.

But there is no need, in my view, to pretend that plural marriage was not one of the defining factors of Mormon life. The Saints were instructed to adopt the practice, through revelation (D&C 132). It served its purpose – a purpose we’ll talk about in a moment – and then the practice was withdrawn. Regardless of whether that principle was withdrawn as a result of a formal revelation, regardless of whether the practice might have lasted longer had it not been for outside legal and social pressure, is irrelevant. Plural marriage was a priesthood ordinance, and the one man on earth who held and exercised the keys to that sealing ordinance – Wilford Woodruff, at that time – withdrew his authorization for the practice. The man who holds those keys today – the president of the Church – does not authorize the practice of plural marriage today, and anyone who enters into it today does so in violation of the law of God."

But regarding those areas I have highlighted one could ask themselves:

1. that we very seldom address in Sunday School, in my experience, but both the text of Jacob and the explicit instructions of the Sunday School lesson manual authorize me to teach something about this – about polygamy, or plural marriage.

Why does she implicitly feel the need to give herself standing to discuss plural marriage in the class if it is a subject that all (including leadership) are comfortable with?

2. Does she feel an implicit sense of shame coming from the Leadership in the way the fact of polygamy is attempted to be minimized or passed off as a non-issue?

"as if we should be ashamed of the practice and try to minimize the numbers as far as possible."

Then we have this tidbit from her comments section:

“I saved ten minutes for that part of the lesson — should have saved 15, but cut the ongoing discussion short at that point to have that much time. I really wanted to do this. I was nervous starting — although I remember talking about polygamy in seminary, I’ve never discussed it as a teacher or class member in a devotional setting, and really didn’t have any model for it.

With one exception, the class was absolutely silent, absolutely motionless through the whole thing. It was that intense, listening silence, and it was so still and quiet that I had a hard time judging whether people were accepting or rejecting it. The one exception to the silence was an older woman who is always very supportive, who, when I spoke of the claims that only X% practiced polygamy, nodded vigorously and said, “Yes, yes, it was just 2%.” When I started to explain why that percentage was irrelevant, even she stopped and just listened.

The sister offering the closing prayer mentioned appreciation for that part of the lesson, and it’s what everybody wanted to talk about afterward. My co-teacher asked if I had ever written a paper on polygamy, and told me I ought to. He was holding my hand through that whole conversation, the kind of “I really mean this and you need to take me seriously” hand holding. Most people wanted to tell me privately that the children of those plural marriages had become the strength of the Church, and they wanted to line up with me in saying that plural marriage was nothing to be ashamed of.

Anyway, it went well, I think. People were interested, and appreciated hearing. They’re willing to listen, possibly eager, but where do you go for a discussion in a faithful, friendly setting? "

The above quote is so full of confirmations of what I’ve been saying I don’t know where to start.

1. “although I remember talking about polygamy in seminary, I’ve never discussed it as a teacher or class member in a devotional setting, and really didn’t have any model for it.” I wonder why?

2. “With one exception, the class was absolutely silent, absolutely motionless through the whole thing. It was that intense, listening silence, and it was so still and quiet that I had a hard time judging whether people were accepting or rejecting it.” Does a commonly discussed principle create this sort of reaction in a class?

3. “They’re willing to listen, possibly eager, but where do you go for a discussion in a faithful, friendly setting?” This statement is exceedingly telling. Why would an unrepressed people not be able to find a “friendly setting” in which to discuss plural marriage?

Are we to think that the above descriptions of what would go on in a class and the thoughts of the students and instructor would be the truly unusual and exceptional in the church? Somehow I doubt it......

Some here have asked for CFRs regarding my personal experience. I would just say that not all church policies are given in written form and would refer them to this statement regarding “The Unwritten Order of Things” by Boyd K. Packer:

“I said to him, "Bishop, I know something else about you. You're not a good follower, are you? Aren't you the one who is always questioning what the stake president asks of his bishops?" The other bishops in the room started to chuckle and nodded their heads--he was the one. He chuckled and said he supposed that was right. I said, "Perhaps the reason your members don't follow their leader is because you don't follow yours. An essential attribute of a leader in the Church is faithful and loyal followship. That is just the order of things--the unwritten order of things."

“Well, there is so much I want to tell you about the unwritten order of things, but then these are things that you must learn for yourself. If we could only put you in the circumstance where you begin to observe, begin to get that training, then you will know how the Church is to operate and why it operates that way. You will find that it conforms to the principles which are outlined in the scriptures. If you will just "treasure up in your minds continually the words of life," the Lord will bless you and give "you in the very hour" what you should say and what you should do (D&C 84:85). Learn about this great pattern--the teachings that come to us from just watching and participating.”

I think there is much in the church that is passed on verbally and through example that is actually policy driven but not shown because of what “the world” might think.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Palerider

[Palerider]

I apologize profusely for the small text in the above post. I'm old and not so good at this.

EDIT: Think I got it where it's at least readable.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Palerider

[Calm]

Most people wanted to tell me privately that the children of those plural marriages had become the strength of the Church, and they wanted to line up with me in saying that plural marriage was nothing to be ashamed of.

So most people saying that plural marriage was nothing to be ashamed of is evidence that most people are embarrassed by it?

[Palerider]

So most people saying that plural marriage was nothing to be ashamed of is evidence that most people are embarrassed by it?

No. It is evidence that they perceive that their leadership is embarrassed by it and that they (the members) would sooner have it more openly taught (as a subject for understanding, not practise) without shame.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Palerider

[Tacenda]

Libs:

Who hasn't at least heard that LDS practiced polygamy? Heck, Despite our near constant denials our modern day detractors claim we still practice it. I still get questions about how many wives I have.

What is to be gained by pressing the point that we used to practiced polygamy, even in Church meetings? Will it help me better relate to my wife and family. Will it help me be more like Christ? Quite frankly whether Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.,etc., had one or a hundred wives it doesn't effect my salvation in the slightest.

I agree it shouldn't be harped on in class at church. I had an awesome experience in RS today, where the teacher (sub) spoke about receiving revelation, a conf.talk given by Elder Richard G.Scott. Quite frankly it was the best lesson I've had in RS for a long time, and as much as I'd like the church to be more out there with the subject of polygamy, it would have ruined the spirit, if done there today. I now believe there must be a time and place for topics like polygamy.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Tacenda

[Palerider]

I recently attended a Lutheran Sunday School where they talked about the minister who had first brought Lutheranism to America. They even had a film production in docu/drama form to help explain it.

Apparently the minister had become overbearing in his demands on the parishioners who had come to America with him and had ended up committing adultery with several of his female parishioners. He was defrocked I believe and had to leave the parish. Was it the most spiritual meeting I have ever attended?

No, but it was quite refreshing to see a religion give an accurate account to it's members, warts and all, and allow them the benefit of making up their own minds as to how to archive the information rather than being strictly "faith promoting" to the point of whitewashing.

[why me]

I now believe there must be a time and place for topics like polygamy.

This is true. I wouldn't recommend polygamy being discussed in most lessons. It would have been out of context. However, in other aspects in could be worthwhile. For example, when the D&C is going to be discussed and section 132 is for that day, it may be good to discuss polygamy with Joseph Smith in mind. And it should be mentioned when church history is discussed by lds historians. Sometimes they can omit it altogether.

[why me]

I recently attended a Lutheran Sunday School where they talked about the minister who had first brought Lutheranism to America. They even had a film production in docu/drama form to help explain it.

Apparently the minister had become overbearing in his demands on the parishioners who had come to America with him and had ended up committing adultery with several of his female parishioners. He was defrocked I believe and had to leave the parish. Was it the most spiritual meeting I have ever attended?

No, but it was quite refreshing to see a religion give an accurate account to it's members, warts and all, and allow them the benefit of making up their own minds as to how to archive the information rather than being strictly "faith promoting" to the point of whitewashing.

I would think that since he was defrocked, it would need to be mentioned since this caused a major problem within lutheranism. But i am sure that not all warts were mentioned.

[Tacenda]

This is true. I wouldn't recommend polygamy being discussed in most lessons. It would have been out of context. However, in other aspects in could be worthwhile. For example, when the D&C is going to be discussed and section 132 is for that day, it may be good to discuss polygamy with Joseph Smith in mind. And it should be mentioned when church history is discussed by lds historians. Sometimes they can omit it altogether.

As much as I'd like there to be a time for discussion about JS polygamy in a church like atmosphere, so that it is authoratative, I think it will hurt so many women and men's testimonies, and may even put them on a path much like I've had to go on. I'm seriously thinking this is why it's not discussed. People on this thread scoff at the idea that members don't know such things, but I, with every fiber of my being, believe they're wrong. It may be more out there, in the mission field where mormons get bashed by non lds people and they bring it up more. Or families talk about it more since the subject came up more often. I don't know, but in my neck of the woods, it's not brought up, seldom if ever that JS had 33 wives, and some were married to other men. My neck of the woods being a suburb near Salt Lake City, Utah.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Tacenda

[Palerider]

This is true. I wouldn't recommend polygamy being discussed in most lessons. It would have been out of context. However, in other aspects in could be worthwhile. For example, when the D&C is going to be discussed and section 132 is for that day, it may be good to discuss polygamy with Joseph Smith in mind. And it should be mentioned when church history is discussed by lds historians. Sometimes they can omit it altogether.

I agree.

[why me]

As much as I'd like there to be a time for discussion about JS polygamy in a church like atmosphere, so that it is authoratative, I think it will hurt so many women and men's testimonies, and may even put them on a path much like I've had to go on. I'm seriously thinking this is why it's not discussed.

I think that polygamy can be very faith promoting when one looks at the wives of Joseph Smith. It just needs the correct interpretation. Lets face it, members will find it on the internet and become influenced by critic interpretations. And then comes doubt. Somewhere along the line it will need to be discussed by church members since many members are affected in a negative way by it when they get it from the internet. So, Joseph's polygamy will need to be recognized and mentioned eventually. And the church will be stronger for it.

[Palerider]

Palerider, it does seem that the church does not speak of polygamy, at least, in church meetings, very often. That has been one of my major complaints. I really would have preferred hearing some of the things I heard about Joseph Smith's polygamy, in the church, instead of from critics.

But, I think the way you have worded it makes it sound like a "coverup" (which, perhaps, you believe to be true, but most active members would find that offensive). Really, it could be just a matter of priorities, since polygamy is no longer actively practiced, here on earth?

Hi Libs, Nice to see you're still around.

I think institutions are sometimes analoguos to individuals especially since they are in fact run by human beings.

Sometimes people do things that they either were told not to and did them anyway because they thought they could handle it or they were persuaded by someone who told them it would be alright. Whatever the case, when those things kind of blow up in their face and it becomes obvious that the entire incident is painful and embarrassing, they just prefer not to talk about it anymore. they don't like being questioned about it or having to explain what they were thinking.

Having raised 4 teenagers I'm very familiar with this defence mechanism. It's an adolescent behavior that sometimes drifts over into adulthood when someone doesn't mature emotionally.

Is it a coverup in the usual sense of the word?

Maybe not....but one doesn't want their new girlfriend knowing that at their age they were silly enough to poke ones finger in a light socket after being told not to by someone and yet were persuaded it would be o.k. by others. It opens one up to ridicule and threatens the relationship with the new girl.......

Edited July 22, 2012 by Palerider

[CASteinman]

As much as I'd like there to be a time for discussion about JS polygamy in a church like atmosphere, so that it is authoratative, I think it will hurt so many women and men's testimonies, and may even put them on a path much like I've had to go on. I'm seriously thinking this is why it's not discussed. People on this thread scoff at the idea that members don't know such things, but I, with every fiber of my being, believe they're wrong. It may be more out there, in the mission field where mormons get bashed by non lds people and they bring it up more. Or families talk about it more since the subject came up more often. I don't know, but in my neck of the woods, it's not brought up, seldom if ever that JS had 33 wives, and some were married to other men. My neck of the woods being a suburb near Salt Lake City, Utah.

I don't understand this at all. Really I don't. To me it is inconceivable that people do not know that Joseph Smith had many wives. Its Mormonism for crying out loud. They have polygamy! Even today! Everyone knows that!

But I was not raised in Utah amongst the mountains and temples. Maybe this environment is so different that a different expectation should occur.

I have had a thought these last few days: Maybe we have entered a time when we have a great many members who do not really want to be a peculiar people. They want to be mainstream. And this peculiar people history does not mesh well with our desires to be popular and normal. (I have recently heard reports of cultural Mormons having panic attacks hearing about Mormonism being discussed in the national media).

At the same time, the Church is confronted by a requirement to not teach polygamy, nor to give any indication that it is even in the least bit approved of or authorized. (Unless you have heard the stories you have no idea how far people will stretch things that they have heard in the Church or how easily they will slide to justify something like this if they want to practice it. It is amazing). So they don't talk about it.

Then a confluence occurs. People not wanting to be a peculiar people determine some peculiar people teaching is not popular and ascribe to the Prophet and Apostles the same motives that they would have if they were in their positions.... never really thinking about what the Apostles' position actually is. Obviously its a cover up -- because to these members it is an embarrassment and they certainly would want -- and do want -- it to have never existed, to be washed away and forgotten.

Edited July 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[Darth_Bill]

I asked my wife, and she didn't learn about it from church (Convert at 15). And it might not be the polygamy, but the polyandry that is the issue. You know, marrying men's wives after he sent them off on missions. That can be very messy. The devil, as it were, is in the details. I've hinted at it with my wife and she told me to stop. She knows she would leave the church if she knew the details, so I don't discuss it with her. She finds other things in church than I do.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Darth_Bill

[Tacenda]

I don't understand this at all. Really I don't. To me it is inconceivable that people do not know that Joseph Smith had many wives. Its Mormonism for crying out loud. They have polygamy! Even today! Everyone knows that!

But I was not raised in Utah amongst the mountains and temples. Maybe this environment is so different that a different expectation should occur.

I have had a thought these last few days: Maybe we have entered a time when we have a great many members who do not really want to be a peculiar people. They want to be mainstream. And this peculiar people history does not mesh well with our desires to be popular and normal. (I have recently heard reports of cultural Mormons having panic attacks hearing about Mormonism being discussed in the national media).

At the same time, the Church is confronted by a requirement to not teach polygamy, nor to give any indication that it is even in the least bit approved of or authorized. (Unless you have heard the stories you have no idea how far people will stretch things that they have heard in the Church or how easily they will slide to justify something like this if they want to practice it. It is amazing). So they don't talk about it.

Then a confluence occurs. People not wanting to be a peculiar people determine some peculiar people teaching is not popular and ascribe to the Prophet and Apostles the same motives that they would have if they were in their positions.... never really thinking about what the Apostles' position actually is. Obviously its a cover up -- because to these members it is an embarrassment and they certainly would want -- and do want -- it to have never existed, to be washed away and forgotten.

I understand that this would be a flabbergasting thought. But I firmly believe it's so. Maybe they believe he may have lived it with possibly 2 wives or so, but not to the extent that he did. I remember reading into the night and in the wee hours of the morning, the "Work and the Glory" series, while my young children were in bed. In the book when it came to when Joseph Smith was commanded to live polygamy, it barely mentions that he may have lived it, it's very vague. The one or two friends that I've brought it up with, which I left most of the details out, didn't know the extent of it either.

[CASteinman]

I understand that this would be a flabbergasting thought. But I firmly believe it's so. Maybe they believe he may have lived it with possibly 2 wives or so, but not to the extent that he did. I remember reading into the night and in the wee hours of the morning, the "Work and the Glory" series, while my young children were in bed. In the book when it came to when Joseph Smith was commanded to live polygamy, it barely mentions that he may have lived it, it's very vague. The one or two friends that I've brought it up with, which I left most of the details out, didn't know the extent of it either.

Maybe your view of extensive is different than mine. I don't view a fairly limited situation to be extensive. He was sealed to 33 women but it was not like he lived with or even slept with all of them. As far as I can tell probably not even half of them. Off the top of my head I think maybe five or six.

[ERayR]

I meant in the hereafter, live the highest law. And the previous resources given from prophets and apostles are not anti. Unless it's all trumped by the current ones, but truth be told, I don't believe it's been changed, their views for the hereafter.

Tacenda think about it. Is anyone going to be forced into any action they are uncomfortable with in the heavens? I am certain that it will be available to those who wish to participate. I am also certain that for those who don't it will not be required.