Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Wrestling With Polyandry


Recommended Posts

But putting marriage in terms of ownership just seems wrong.

It has been defined that way for eons. We are the odd ones for thinking of it different.

If it bothers you, why not 'rewrite' the Section using more modern phrasing and study it that way?

Link to comment

It has been defined that way for eons. We are the odd ones for thinking of it different.

If it bothers you, why not 'rewrite' the Section using more modern phrasing and study it that way?

Because the result would be even more controversial than the topic of Mormon polygamy already is.

Link to comment

I'm asking you.

The answer is I don't know. I have never received a commandment to practice polygamy. I have never received a commandment to allow my wife to be sealed to another man for the eternal lives. I don't know how I would feel.

However, if my wife of today were to come to me and say that she wanted a divorce to marry another man, I would ask a few questions to be sure, then if she were sure, I would let her go. I learned a lesson many years ago about those things. I learned that some things are not easy to deal with, but if the end result is inevitable, then I must deal with it and get on with my life.

If that edict comes from the Lord, it is all the more necessary to deal with it.

Glenn

Link to comment

The original thought experiment was in response to someone saying that we can't set aside their spiritual experiences without calling into calling our own into question. I was trying to say this need not be so.

Yes, that's what I thought it was.

I was agreeing that one cannot question another's spiritual experiences without calling our own into question because there is no objective standard to determine who is "right".

Oh well.

I guess we are getting nowhere on that one.

Link to comment

We also live in a very judgmental age. I remember in high school the teacher mentioned Utah and mormons and polygamy. No reaction from the class when it was told that mormons had more than one wife. No one cared. Likewise until the internet. But the internet changed the game and made the practice a judgmental practice of exploitation.

I think we forget how much we have changed just in even the last 40 years or so.

My wife was watching My Fair Lady the other night- it had been one of the most popular Broadway Plays ever- and even I found it offensively sexist. At the end, Eliza, after asserting her independence through the entire plot, knuckles under, gives up, and fetches Rex Harrison's slippers without a single concession from him that he will change his ways one iota.

My wife and I looked at each other and could not believe it- that was not the ending we remembered at all. Almost simultaneously we said to each other "Wow! That would never fly now!"

There are many many shows which were on TV in the 50's which will never be aired again because of sexism and racism- eve though at the time they were not recognized as offensive in the slightest.

Link to comment

. . . . . It is much like that of David. He had his calling as a king and evidently as a prophet king, but also had a mortal failing for which Nathan the prophet called him out. We have no record of Joseph being called out by another prophet, which would have had to be the quorum of the twelve.

Per D&C 107, the revelation or doctrine has to be accepted by the entire first presidency. Sidney Rigdon (1st counselor) and William Law (2nd counselor) never accpeted polygamy as true revelation or true doctrine. William Law who was sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator as a member of the first presidency DID call Joseph out on polygamy and was a principal in starting the Nauvoo Expositor to expose thise doctrine that was being denied and lied about.

Link to comment

I think we forget how much we have changed just in even the last 40 years or so.

My wife was watching My Fair Lady the other night- it had been one of the most popular Broadway Plays ever- and even I found it offensively sexist. At the end, Eliza, after asserting her independence through the entire plot, knuckles under, gives up, and fetches Rex Harrison's slippers without a single concession from him that he will change his ways one iota.

My wife and I looked at each other and could not believe it- that was not the ending we remembered at all. Almost simultaneously we said to each other "Wow! That would never fly now!"

There are many many shows which were on TV in the 50's which will never be aired again because of sexism and racism- eve though at the time they were not recognized as offensive in the slightest.

And this is important when we consider the church. People often put the present case for church history. When they should put the past case. Of course, it would be nice to have church leaders back in the 19th century to have a twenty-first century mind. But if they did they would have been put in the funny farm.

Link to comment

My personal testimony of the law of chastity is much more significant to me than the testimony of a 19th Century woman I know very little about.

They should be both rather complimentary. The nineteenth century woman called Zina would probably kick you in the butt for lessening her spiritual experiences. Zina received many spiritual experiences during her lifetime. And these experiences defined her.

Edited by why me
Link to comment

I think we forget how much we have changed just in even the last 40 years or so.

My wife was watching My Fair Lady the other night- it had been one of the most popular Broadway Plays ever- and even I found it offensively sexist. At the end, Eliza, after asserting her independence through the entire plot, knuckles under, gives up, and fetches Rex Harrison's slippers without a single concession from him that he will change his ways one iota.

My wife and I looked at each other and could not believe it- that was not the ending we remembered at all. Almost simultaneously we said to each other "Wow! That would never fly now!"

There are many many shows which were on TV in the 50's which will never be aired again because of sexism and racism- eve though at the time they were not recognized as offensive in the slightest.

I only wish you were right. You point out that you and your wife's attitudes have changed, and that is why you remark that "Wow! That would never fly now!", but I doubt that many of the rest of the world have made similar changes.

My wife and I watch American shows on occasion (She watches "Top Model" but I can't stand it) but in shows we share common interest in, our comments are that we wonder why Swedish television would ever purchase such drivel. "Big Love" is an example. The film channels insist on showing a continual barrage of American movies and the plots and dialogues have a never ending bombardment of sexism, drugs and violence. Watch any of the "Fast and Furious" films and see if women have made any advances in their roles over "My Fair Lady".

Link to comment

The nineteenth century woman called Zina would probably kick you in the butt for lessening her spiritual experiences.

And you know this because? Do you have any examples from any of the stories of her life where she kicked a man's butt? Aren't you just projecting your own thoughts on to her experiences?

Link to comment

There are just two types of couples in this world. Those that have been married for eternity, and those that just feel like they have. ;)

Reminds me of the lyrics "Paradise By the Dashboard Light" by Meatloaf "I swore that I would love you to the end of time! So now I'm praying for the end of time"

Link to comment

Per D&C 107, the revelation or doctrine has to be accepted by the entire first presidency. Sidney Rigdon (1st counselor) and William Law (2nd counselor) never accpeted polygamy as true revelation or true doctrine. William Law who was sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator as a member of the first presidency DID call Joseph out on polygamy and was a principal in starting the Nauvoo Expositor to expose thise doctrine that was being denied and lied about.

William law did not call Joseph out by taking the matter up before the council of the twelve. He chose a different route.

Glenn

Link to comment

I agree that the "spiritual daughter" explanation doesn't really hold water. Quinn writes that "Although Josephine Lyon didn't know [about her alleged paternity] until 1882, and didn't make an affidavit to that effect until three decades later, Angus M. Cannon (president of the Salt Lake Stake since 1876) told Joseph Smith III that Brigham Young had referred to her in 1877: 'That girl, I believe, is living today in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard Prest. Young, a short time before his death [in August 1877], refer to the report and remark that he had never seen the girl, but he would like to see her for himself, that he might determine if she bore any likeness to your father.' A decade after Young's death, a devout Mormon (George H. Brimhall) wrote on 1 January 1888: '... had a talk with Father Hales, who told me that it was said that Joseph Smith had a daughter named Josephine living at Bountiful, Utah'" (Quinn, "The Sexual Side of Joseph Smith's Polygamy," 2). If Brigham Young had not believed it possible that Josephine was Joseph's biological daughter, he would hardly have been curious about her resemblance to him.

Yes--and I have other early quotes, from before Sylvia's death, including one account of a direct conversation with Sylvia and an even more surprising bit of evidence.

Denying that Sylvia believed Josephine to be Joseph's daughter is a losing battle.

Don

Link to comment

Even if there were no sexual relations in Joseph Smith's polyandry, the next life part of it is still troubling.

Men: Would you allow the prophet to seal himself to your wife with the understanding that in the next life she would belong to him?

Women: Would you allow yourself to be sealed to the prophet with the understanding that in the next life you would belong to him and not your current husband?

Yes, this is what I was saying earlier. It's disturbing either way (though obviously it would be more disturbing if Joseph were doing both).

I have trouble with the idea that Joseph did it all right--which, fortunately, Latter-day Saints don't have to (and shouldn't) believe, since D&C 132 upbraids Joseph's "sins," "transgressions," and "trespasses."

Don

Link to comment

Yes--and I have other early quotes, from before Sylvia's death, including one account of a direct conversation with Sylvia and an even more surprising bit of evidence.

Denying that Sylvia believed Josephine to be Joseph's daughter is a losing battle.

Don

So refreshing that a true believer is honest even though it may tip scales. Btw, I'll never forget you and Maxine at the Sunstone Symposium last summer!
Link to comment
What would you make of it?... understanding polyandry as not necessarily evil, just as polygyny isn't, and might perhaps exist in the celestial kingdom.

I think polyandry, and polygamy, are symbolic.

read through this:

"

“One Thing Needful”: Becoming Women of Greater Faith in Christ By Patricia T. Holland"

http://www.lds.org/e...christ?lang=eng

I have never questioned why our mother in heaven seems veiled to us, for I believe the Lord has his reasons for revealing as little as he has on that subject. Furthermore, I believe we know much more about our eternal nature than we think we do; and it is our sacred obligation to express our knowledge, to teach it to our young sisters and daughters, and in so doing to strengthen their faith and help them through the counterfeit confusions of these difficult latter days. Let me point out some examples.

The Lord has not placed us in this lone and dreary world without a blueprint for living. In Doctrine and Covenants 52, we read the Lord’s words: “I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived.” (D&C 52:14; italics added.) He certainly includes us women in that promise. He has given us patterns in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price; and he has given us patterns in the temple ceremony. As we study these patterns, we must continually ask, “Why does the Lord choose to say these particular words and present it in just this way?” We know he uses metaphors and symbols and parables and allegories to teach us of his eternal ways. We have all recognized the relationship between Abraham and Isaac that so parallels God’s anguish over the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ. But, as women, do we stretch ourselves and also ask about Sarah’s travail in this experience as well? We need to search in this manner, and we need always to look for deeper meaning. We should look for parallels and symbols. We should look for themes and motifs such as those we would find in a Bach or a Mozart composition, and we should look for repeated patterns.

As this all revovles around "the law of Sarah" (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:65) isn't it obvious? Abraham and Isaac represent HEavenly Father and Jesus, so that would make Sarah Heavenly mother... at the last minute, Abraham didn't have to sacrifice his son, and at the last minute, Sarah was able to have a child (rather than the child coming from a handmaid) but for our Savior? the atonement really happened, and Jesus was born to a handmaid... and Jesus also had a stepfather.... that explains what polyandry and polygamy are all about imo, but someone correct me if there is another interpretation of the "law of Sarah".

Edited by changed
Link to comment

Why did you ban Helen 47 from this thread?

As I recall her posts were pretty inappropriate and explicit. I remember them and thought they were definitely out of line. It looks like they have been deleted.

Link to comment

I think polyandry, and polygamy, are symbolic.

read through this:

"

“One Thing Needful”: Becoming Women of Greater Faith in Christ By Patricia T. Holland"

http://www.lds.org/e...christ?lang=eng

As this all revovles around "the law of Sarah" (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:65) isn't it obvious? Abraham and Isaac represent HEavenly Father and Jesus, so that would make Sarah Heavenly mother... at the last minute, Abraham didn't have to sacrifice his son, and at the last minute, Sarah was able to have a child (rather than the child coming from a handmaid) but for our Savior? the atonement really happened, and Jesus was born to a handmaid... and Jesus also had a stepfather.... that explains what polyandry and polygamy are all about imo, but someone correct me if there is another interpretation of the "law of Sarah".

Wow.

I never saw that before

Link to comment

And you know this because? Do you have any examples from any of the stories of her life where she kicked a man's butt? Aren't you just projecting your own thoughts on to her experiences?

She was a pioneer woman who lived through her tragedies. She was no wall flower. She had spirit and fight in her. Thus, if anyone would be questioning her spiritual experiences they would have received a good retort. Likewise for Lucy Walker who was known for her scots-Irish stubbornness. I believe Bushman referred to it.

Link to comment

Wow.

I never saw that before

2 Nephi 9:7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement...

pondering on what a truly infinite atonement would encompass, I think it involved greater sacrifices than Christ dying on the cross, although that was certainly part of it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...