Wrestling With Polyandry

[ERayR]

.

I honestly do not know what you are talking about when you say I do not care. As for knowing your view I assumed you beleive God sanctioned JSs plural marriage I but my assumption could be wrong. Feel free to correct me. Above you also accuse me of not being kind or respectful of others views to the point of deriding and being disrespectful. I disagree. I rarely post here and when I do I try to be respectful. But if you can give me specific examples I would be happy to work on it. I am sure in the heat of debate I have been pointed or sharp with some here and there especially to those who are towards me or others, but I think it is not often.

My view is that as far as the restoration goes polygamy is irrelevant.

[Sleeper Cell]

Why do we need to be tried in barbaric ways? I am not convinced the the Abraham story is anything more than myth. And why was it up to Joseph Smith to test the saints in this way? The Heber Kimball give me your wife test comes to mind. How strange and cruel that was. Sure we have agency, free will or whatever you want to call it.

Why stop there?

Someday, the “blessed honored pioneers” story may be seen in the same way. After all, how many children died because their parents -- at the urging of church leaders -- exposed them to the foreseeable hazards of the trek to Salt Lake? (At least Abraham’s son survived). Even if it were argued that the Nauvoo Saints had to leave to avoid further persecution, what about the British Saints?

[ERayR]

Why stop there?

Someday, the “blessed honored pioneers” story may be seen in the same way. After all, how many children died because their parents -- at the urging of church leaders -- exposed them to the foreseeable hazards of the trek to Salt Lake? (At least Abraham’s son survived). Even if it were argued that the Nauvoo Saints had to leave to avoid further persecution, what about the British Saints?

Indeed why stop at all? Why do we need all this useless deprivation and suffering in the world? Why not just provide us with comfort and ease so we can all sit around singing and studying? We can play the Why Not game ad nauseam.

[cdowis]

My view is that as far as the restoration goes polygamy is irrelevant.

So, it was not a part of the "restoration of all things".

[ERayR]

So, it was not a part of the "restoration of all things".

Didn't say that. I said it is irrelevant to the truth claims of the first vision and subsequent ones to that point. It has no relevance to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon. It has no relevance to anything up to that point.

[omni]

I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but anyone else think it was a little selfish for JS tip take thirty something brides? If marriage is required for the highest levels of the CK, doesn't his marriages take that opportunity from dozens of other men? Unless of course you believe there were several times as many women as men at the time.

[ERayR]

I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but anyone else think it was a little selfish for JS tip take thirty something brides? If marriage is required for the highest levels of the CK, doesn't his marriages take that opportunity from dozens of other men? Unless of course you believe there were several times as many women as men at the time.

Your assumption is incorrect therefore your conclusion is in error.

[thesometimesaint]

Eventually we all will be Sealed to everyone else. So I've leave that up to them and God to work out.

[Glenn101]

If he had made it to the Rocky Mountains do you think Emma would have been able to withstand that openess? And would he have married several more like BY did?

Also, all of it makes sense when we put into the context that men will become Gods or just a few righteous enough will. There were plenty of men available for the women to marry with no need for polygamy, and polyandry apparently was put forth because JS was the most righteous of all or any current prophet if polygamy was practiced with the living still. These two prophets were starting their kingdoms here on earth. And soon it apparently spread that the rest of them started their kingdoms also. It is the only plausible reason for plural marriage, it is key. The loophole being that some of the polyandry wives had righteous husbands so the need for a marriage to JS seem bizarre, unless it was just to be able to live in His kingdom, maybe that's why he married sisters, and mother/daughter combinations to keep them together, but the bible condemns such, therefore it may have been time for JS to be destroyed for disobeying. But apparently BY lived polyandry and wasn't destroyed, so it's a big question mark of why not.

I just do not know what Emma would have done. That lady had no peace from external sources from the day she married Joseph and some maybe even more chaotic from within. She went through so much and sacrificed so much.

The only information/reason I have been able to come up with for Joseph being sealed to the wives of living, righteous men is that he had received the information from God that those women were to be his plural wives in the next life, not this one. Zian Huntington was so informed before her marriage to Henry Jacobs. This is the strangest case of them all.

I am not sure that Brigham Young was in a polyandrous relationship with Zina. We just do not have any record of a civil divorce.

As to Joseph being destroyed for disobedience, I don't think that is logical. It has been pointed out in other posts that Joseph was sealed to several women for eternity who were married to living men at the time he was commanded to reveal section 132 in toto. In that section, verse 49 we read "For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father."

In that same section, the Lord notes that Joseph has made some errors. Hardly grievous, in light of verse 49, but then the Lord says is verse 60, "Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God."

So, what that is telling me is that the only thing I need to do is find out if Joseph was a prophet, and let the Lord handle the rest. Whatever troubles my heart about the situation, it is the Lord's province to judge Joseph and the extent of his transgressions.

So, if any of ye lack wisdom.....

Glenn

[awyatt]

I agree that Joseph Smith's polygamy does not boil down to sex.

However, I think marriage in general is almost always at least partly about sex. And I have trouble seeing polygamy as somehow an exception to that rule.

If Joseph Smith was completely unmoved by sexual motives when it came to his marriage choices, there was something wrong with him. For that to be the case, he would've had to be an asexual ascetic. We don't expect this sort of detachment and asexuality in monogamy. So why expect it in polygamy?

I fear that there may be a bit of "presentism" behind the above statements. (This isn't a criticism; it is just a statement of something I sense--perhaps incorrectly.)

People in the first half of the 19th Century didn't view marriage as people do currently. Joseph and his contemporaries were living in Victorian times, and marriage was markedly different than it is today. There are plenty of academic resources on this topic, all from non-LDS sources. The societal mores of the day need to be taken into account in any consideration of the "why" and "how" of marriage then, be it monogamous or polygamous. It also needs to be taken into account in marital practices, connubial life, and marital dissolution. All (and I mean ALL) were different from what one sees in society today.

It is true that "we don't expect this sort of detachment and asexuality." That isn't the point. The point is what THEY expected.

-Allen

[why me]

Thank you why me in showing me that other women in other sects claim of personal witnesses about some sort of aberhent marriage system carries no weight with you. Only those who married JS in his plural marriage doctrine. So yes it is all a matter of faith.

What I saw in your comparison was not a comparison at all. To compare Joseph Smith to Wayne Bent was so farfetched that it really didn't need a comment. And what both created is quite different. One a small compound with a handful of members and the other a world wide church recognized for the good that it does. Do you see what I mean?

[why me]

I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but anyone else think it was a little selfish for JS tip take thirty something brides? If marriage is required for the highest levels of the CK, doesn't his marriages take that opportunity from dozens of other men? Unless of course you believe there were several times as many women as men at the time.

He wasn't the only polygamist in the church at that time. Some of the leaders took more than one wife too. It was a limited practice. Was he selfish? Well, if the same angel which appeared to him also appeared in the old testament, then I do believe that he really didn't have a choice.

Numbers 22:23

And the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the donkey turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the donkey, to turn her into the way.

1 Chronicles 21:16

And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.

What would you have done if you saw the same angel with his sword telling you to do something? Would you be a donkey?

Edited June 11, 2013 by why me

[DonBradley]

In that same section, the Lord notes that Joseph has made some errors. Hardly grievous, in light of verse 49, but then the Lord says is verse 60, "Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God."

So, what that is telling me is that the only thing I need to do is find out if Joseph was a prophet, and let the Lord handle the rest. Whatever troubles my heart about the situation, it is the Lord's province to judge Joseph and the extent of his transgressions.

BINGO! Glenn, that's an excellent reading of the verse, and a wise approach to boot.

Don

[DonBradley]

I fear that there may be a bit of "presentism" behind the above statements. (This isn't a criticism; it is just a statement of something I sense--perhaps incorrectly.)

People in the first half of the 19th Century didn't view marriage as people do currently. Joseph and his contemporaries were living in Victorian times, and marriage was markedly different than it is today. There are plenty of academic resources on this topic, all from non-LDS sources. The societal mores of the day need to be taken into account in any consideration of the "why" and "how" of marriage then, be it monogamous or polygamous. It also needs to be taken into account in marital practices, connubial life, and marital dissolution. All (and I mean ALL) were different from what one sees in society today.

Allen,

It's excellent that you're staying aware of the problem of presentism. I am puzzled, though, at what you think was so different on this particular point.

What is your evidence that in Joseph Smith's (pre-)Victorian era, sexual attraction and desire weren't factors in people's marital hopes and decisions?

Sexual attraction and desire are strongly hard-wired into human nature; and marriage, for as long as we have record of such an institution, has been closely tied to sex. This doesn't mean (nor am I saying) that all of Joseph Smith's sealed relationships were connubial marriages. But it does suggest that the burden of proof is on the claim that sexual desire and attraction were not a factor in how Joseph Smith selected and related to his plural wives. Are we to believe that people in the 1840s didn't prefer more attractive mates to less attractive mates? (Isn't a preference in that direction implied in the very terms "more attractive" and "less attractive"?) Or that they didn't choose to have sexual relations at times when they felt sexual desire?

Must we think it merely coincidental that the descriptions we have of Joseph Smith's wives indicate that they were very attractive? Or would it be okay to acknowledge that he, to repeat the tautology, was a normal man who preferred more attractive mates to less attractive mates, albeit a normal man commanded by God to practice polygamy?

I'm just trying to get us to be realistic in how we think about this. We seem to think that in order to defend polygamy, we need to do what the 1832 tar-and-feathering mob wasn't able to and castrate the man.

Of course the normal sexual attractions and desires influenced Joseph Smith's choice of polygamous wives and his marital life with them, just like these attractions and desires would have influenced his choice of and marital life with Emma. If the latter is obvious and normal, why shouldn't the former be?

My research convinces me that Joseph Smith's polygamy had solid theological purposes. But I think it's a silly mistake to try to extrapolate from this that sexual desire and attraction had no influence over his marital choices and marital life within polygamy. It's just as silly to think that sexual desire and attraction were not important factors in polygamy and polygamous life as it would be to think that sexual desire and attraction are not important factors in marriage and marital life in general.

Polygamy, after all, isn't some special category separate from marriage. It is simply marriage multiplied. What is true of marriage is, by virtue of that fact, also true of polygamy. And of course, then as now, sexual attraction and desire have everything to do with marriage.

Don

[DonBradley]

Allen, a few more quick thoughts:

1) At the opposite end of the spectrum from the presentism is the fallacy of making the human beings of the past virtually incomprehensible by assuming that they didn't share in our basic human feelings, hopes, and desires.

2) Marriages in the US in Joseph Smith's time were not arranged or based primarily on impersonal factors like finances.

3) As documented by Gordon S. Wood in his The Radicalism of the American Revolution, the ideal of romantic love as a basis for marriage had become dominant during the social revolution that immediately precedent the Revolutionary War. (Indeed, as Wood documents, in order to live out that ideal and escape being forced into arranged marriages, young couples would often purposely get pregnant. In the years just preceding the Revolutionary War, most brides in New England were already pregnant.)

4) If, as you put it, "ALL" the norms surrounding marriage had changed, it wouldn't make sense to still call it marriage. If everything about a social institution changes, it's no longer the same institution. Yet, when we read about 19th century marriages, there is much that is recognizable. Fundamental factors like weddings, state licensing of marriages, romantic love, sexuality, reproduction, desire for fidelity, desire for the marriage to endure (e.g., beyond death, as the early Mormons wanted), etc., etc. have endured.

5) Marriage and sexual desire would not have been less linked in 19th century America, but more. Why? Because then, unlike now, marriage was the only socially sanctioned (and often the only available) way to satisfy sexual desire. Now that most Americans feel they can satisfy these desires outside of marriage, marriage and sexual fulfillment have to some extent been decoupled in our societal institutions and norms. Not so in the US in the 1840s.

6) What we're dealing with here is really such a basic set of human desires, something that (for good reason) is so hard-wired in human biology, that it would actually be shocking (and require reams of evidence) to assert that it was totally different in the 1840s. To argue that a man in the 1840s wouldn't have preferred mates he was more attracted to over mates he was less attracted to, that he wouldn't have probably been preferentially attracted to young women, that he wouldn't have been influenced by sexual desire in when and with what companion he had sexual relations is like arguing that a man in the 1840s wouldn't have preferred pleasure to pain, wouldn't have found the taste of sugar sweet, and wouldn't have been more likely to eat when he was hungry than we was nauseous.

To reiterate--and I think this is important for us to accept in approaching early Mormon polygamy: of course sexual attraction and desire would have been a factor in Joseph Smith's marital decisions and marital life, in polygamy just as in monogamy.

Don

[Ntrw]

Heaven is full of hippies; that's how I see it.

[Tacenda]

Allen, a few more quick thoughts:

1) At the opposite end of the spectrum from the presentism is the fallacy of making the human beings of the past virtually incomprehensible by assuming that they didn't share in our basic human feelings, hopes, and desires.

2) Marriages in the US in Joseph Smith's time were not arranged or based primarily on impersonal factors like finances.

3) As documented by Gordon S. Wood in his The Radicalism of the American Revolution, the ideal of romantic love as a basis for marriage had become dominant during the social revolution that immediately precedent the Revolutionary War. (Indeed, as Wood documents, in order to live out that ideal and escape being forced into arranged marriages, young couples would often purposely get pregnant. In the years just preceding the Revolutionary War, most brides in New England were already pregnant.)

4) If, as you put it, "ALL" the norms surrounding marriage had changed, it wouldn't make sense to still call it marriage. If everything about a social institution changes, it's no longer the same institution. Yet, when we read about 19th century marriages, there is much that is recognizable. Fundamental factors like weddings, state licensing of marriages, romantic love, sexuality, reproduction, desire for fidelity, desire for the marriage to endure (e.g., beyond death, as the early Mormons wanted), etc., etc. have endured.

5) Marriage and sexual desire would not have been less linked in 19th century America, but more. Why? Because then, unlike now, marriage was the only socially sanctioned (and often the only available) way to satisfy sexual desire. Now that most Americans feel they can satisfy these desires outside of marriage, marriage and sexual fulfillment have to some extent been decoupled in our societal institutions and norms. Not so in the US in the 1840s.

6) What we're dealing with here is really such a basic set of human desires, something that (for good reason) is so hard-wired in human biology, that it would actually be shocking (and require reams of evidence) to assert that it was totally different in the 1840s. To argue that a man in the 1840s wouldn't have preferred mates he was more attracted to over mates he was less attracted to, that he wouldn't have probably been preferentially attracted to young women, that he wouldn't have been influenced by sexual desire in when and with what companion he had sexual relations is like arguing that a man in the 1840s wouldn't have preferred pleasure to pain, wouldn't have found the taste of sugar sweet, and wouldn't have been more likely to eat when he was hungry than we was nauseous.

To reiterate--and I think this is important for us to accept in approaching early Mormon polygamy: of course sexual attraction and desire would have been a factor in Joseph Smith's marital decisions and marital life, in polygamy just as in monogamy.

Don

This makes me think of a quote by either Heber C. Kimball or Brigham Young or both, where they say polygamy will do away with brothels or something to that affect and help men stay faithful. But if you want my opinion my explanation for plural marriage is much more faith promoting.

[DonBradley]

“[Joseph Smith III] said, ‘I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death.' I in turn said, ‘Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, 'I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.’”

- Angus M. Cannon, statement for the Church Historian's office on his interview with Joseph Smith III, 1905

Angus Cannon, Eliza R. Snow, and other Mormons of the past were obviously okay with Joseph Smith being both a prophet and a man. Hopefully we can be okay with it too.

Don

Edited June 11, 2013 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

I (clearly!) need to wrench my attention away from this topic and turn it to other things I have to do. But first...

For documentation of the biological roots and cultural universality of some aspects of human sexuality (e.g., men tending more toward polygyny than women do toward polyandry; male attraction to young mates [who are maximally fertile], and the like) see David M. Buss, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating.

Don

[CV75]

To reiterate--and I think this is important for us to accept in approaching early Mormon polygamy: of course sexual attraction and desire would have been a factor in Joseph Smith's marital decisions and marital life, in polygamy just as in monogamy.

I think there is also an overriding eternal perspective on the historical points you listed. Applying D&C 121: 29 -46 to “the sacred powers of procreation” (a term taken from The Family: A Proclamation to the World), there are applications of physical desire that the Lord accepts.

29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers [whether in the form of spiritual gifts, priesthood, or the sacred powers of procreation], shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

…

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the [sacred powers of procreation] are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the [rightful powers of procreation] or the [rightful use of those powers] of that man.

…

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little [power of procreation], as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the [sacred powers of procreation], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

…

44 That [husbands and wives, parents and children] may know that [their] faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity …and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the [sacred powers of procreation] shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

Like the priesthood, I understand these powers of procreation to be spiritual, emotional, mental and attitudinal as well as physical and instinctual.

So, the Lord's conditions concerning the sacred powers of procreation allows many potential configurations, and whichever of those we practice must be approved by His living prophet.

[Teancum]

Indeed why stop at all? Why do we need all this useless deprivation and suffering in the world? Why not just provide us with comfort and ease so we can all sit around singing and studying? We can play the Why Not game ad nauseam.

The point is not unfair nor irrelevent. Certainly life is full of trials, tribulations, illnesses, deprevations and so on all in and of itself. For most human beings wrangling out how to survice and make sense of it all is a challenge and tests if you will. I have often wondered why a lovingGod would put us in such a dire and difficult world and my conclusion currently is that there was no other way for us to learn the Christ like attributes required to continue to grow and progress in the eternities.

However adding extra tests beyond what is already extremely difficult and challanging does seem to me cruel. I could be wrong of couse but that is how I see it.

The the skpetical side of me says perhaps there is no God at all and the world is just a cruel natural phenomena. Who knows. But that is a leap of faith as well in many ways for me.

[Teancum]

What I saw in your comparison was not a comparison at all. To compare Joseph Smith to Wayne Bent was so farfetched that it really didn't need a comment. And what both created is quite different. One a small compound with a handful of members and the other a world wide church recognized for the good that it does. Do you see what I mean?

Yous miss the point entirely. When the LDS women gained their testimony the LDS CHurch was a small sect. And the Wayne Bent group is not the only case of woman gaining testimony that a powerful religious leaders unorthodox sexual or marriage practices were of God. So the point is others gain testimony of all sorts of things that most LDS would not agree are true. So what makes the LDS testimonty of this or anything else unque and others less valid?

Do not make comparisons to convicted criminals.

[why me]

Yous miss the point entirely. When the LDS women gained their testimony the LDS CHurch was a small sect. And the Wayne Bent group is not the only case of woman gaining testimony that a powerful religious leaders unorthodox sexual or marriage practices were of God. So the point is others gain testimony of all sorts of things that most LDS would not agree are true. So what makes the LDS testimonty of this or anything else unque and others less valid?

I think that the church was not so small during the Nauvoo years. It was growing all the time. Cities were organized, churches were built and a temple too. And more and more new members were on their way from distant shores. Where is the wayne bent group now? How big are they? If they still exist, they live in a small compound. See the point? The lds church has prospered. Bent didn't and his group dwindled to nothingness. Flds? The same. It seems the spirit is behind the lds church.

So, yes, I do believe the lds women at that time who received a spiritual experience about the principle.

[why me]

The the skpetical side of me says perhaps there is no God at all and the world is just a cruel natural phenomena.

In the morning, notice the flowers in the park or in your garden. Such flowers are not a cruel natural phenomena.

[omni]

I think that the church was not so small during the Nauvoo years. It was growing all the time. Cities were organized, churches were built and a temple too. And more and more new members were on their way from distant shores. Where is the wayne bent group now? How big are they? If they still exist, they live in a small compound. See the point? The lds church has prospered. Bent didn't and his group dwindled to nothingness. Flds? The same. It seems the spirit is behind the lds church.

So, yes, I do believe the lds women at that time who received a spiritual experience about the principle.

Why do you trust the testimonies of a couple dozen of JS's wives over the tens of thousands of polygamous wives who live today? How big does a church have to be before it becomes true? Compared to the Catholic Church or Islam we are but a speck.