Wrestling With Polyandry

[awyatt]

Don,

Thank you for your well-reasoned responses. We may not be as different in our approach to this as you may be assuming; we shall see...

You apparently read my response and assumed that I was saying that "sexual attraction and desire weren't factors in people's marriages" during the Victorian era. I wasn't trying to say that, and I apologize if it came across that way.

Before I clarify what I meant, let me try to express what I got from your post that prompted my response.

You said "I think marriage in general is almost always at least partly about sex." To me that means "people get married to have sex." That may not be what you meant, but that is what came across to me. In many marriages that may be the case, but I don't think it is safe to say "because some people do X because of y, then all people do x because of y." I have a problem assuming that because some people get married to have sex, that means that all people do and (by implication) so did Joseph. That is what prompted my response to you.

As a side note, I think we would both agree that there were clearly polygamous marriages of Joseph's in which sex (again "wanting to get married to have sex") didn't play a role. I think that the range of women to which he was married speaks more to his approach to polygamy that what we may think "must" have been behind it all. To paraphrase something I heard said one time, if Joseph was in it for the sex, then there were easier ways of going about it than recasting the entire marital practices of a people.

Now, given what my original understanding was of your definition of "sex" being involved in marriage, I was pleased to see you later expand it (to my mind) to include "sexual attraction and desire." Joseph would have needed to be blind to not have noticed the appearance of those he approached about polygamous marriage. But to imply (or extrapolate or assume or whatever) that it was the primary factor (or even a primary factor) in Joseph's case is, to my mind, a conclusion without overwhelming evidence. How do you explain his marriages to multiple aged women, all outside of their fertile years? Did sex play a role in those marriages? If not, then why assume it, defacto, played a role in the others? The data cannot be skewed; it must be considered as a whole.

Please don't get me wrong; I am not (as you state some do) trying to "castrate the man" and say that Joseph didn't have sex with any of his polygamous wives. I don't have any problem with whether he did or didn't, and believe there is good evidence that he did have sex with some (but not all) of them. I do not agree with those, however, who imply that sex was the motivating factor in Joseph's marriages; I really don't think the evidence bears that out. (I'm not saying that you are in that camp, but your words, without further explanation, can be seen as supportive of those who believe such.)

I would like, as well, to address a few of your other well-stated points. You cite, with documentation, that "the ideal of romantic love as a basis for marriage had become dominant during the social revolution that immediately precedent the Revolutionary War." I agree and have no problem with that concept. Some researchers, however, conclude that plural marriage, as instituted by Joseph Smith, was, "at the deepest level," a "fundamental protest against the careless individualism of romantic love." (See Lawrence Foster, "Religion and Sexuality," 1984, pg. 139.) In other words, Joseph was trying--either under divine guidance or through his own desires, depending on your beliefs--to raise marriage above how it was practiced in the world around him. This, by definition, makes his approach to marriage entirely different from ours and from the practices of his day.

As you point out, according to Woods "most brides in New England were already pregnant." Should it surprise anyone that Joseph would find such facts anathema to what he perceived as God's desire for His people and what Joseph tried to solve through a new marital system? Such facts only support Foster's assertion about what was at the basis of such marital changes.

That brings up another issue about which I would appreciate your thoughts. You state that marriage and sexual desire were more linked in 19th Century America because "marriage was the only socially sanctioned...way to satisfy sexual desire." This assumption (which I know many agree with) seems to be contradicted by Woods' data that "most brides in New England" were already pregnant when they got married. That approach, pre-Revolutionary War, seemed to have at least some social signifigance and acceptance.

You close with this statement:

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 don't believe that the case is as strong as you state it. If there hadn't been significant numbers of older women that Joseph married, then your conclusion would be on firmer ground. His documented actions in this regard are not consistent (in my view) with a person that approached his marriages with a predominant or major sexual component.

Thanks, again, for your thoughts; I really appreciate them.

-Allen

Edited June 11, 2013 by awyatt

[awyatt]

By the way, for those interested in reading more about changes in the institution of marriage over the centuries, I would recommed these books:

• "Man and Wife in America: A History" (Hendrick Hartog, 2000, Harvard University Press)
  
• "From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition" (John Witte, Jr., 1997, Westminster John Knox Press)
  
• "Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation" (Nancy F. Cott, 2000, Harvard University Press)
  

I found each of them to be very well done and researched.

-Allen

[tyler90az]

I do not know exactly what happened, it was before my time. The only thing we can know with certainty is where the church is now. Where our church is now is a great indication of where it will go in the future. The present and future need to be what all our soul searching needs to be focused on. I would highly recommend anybody struggling with past infractions to think deeper. To do otherwise what be an injustice to our posterity. Personally I have faith in our church, that my posterity will be safe, prosperous, and happy within this church.

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

We should remember that God did not “put us” into this world. Ultimately, it was our choice -- a choice we made despite knowing we may well be subject to an incredible amount of unfair suffering as well as receiving our “fair” quota of trials and tribulations.

I am not sure what you mean by “extra tests” in context of learning Christ-like attributes. After all, isn’t one of these attributes the willingness to unfairly suffer extra tests beyond what is already difficult and challenging?

While we are speculating, I wonder if we tend to over-romanticize what it means to become like God. “We then are free from toil and sorrow, too … “ and all that. Eternal Life may not be entirely a life of unimaginable joy and bliss. There are a few hints in scripture that, at times, even God is subject to unimaginable suffering. Was it less difficult for God to sacrifice his Son than it was for Abraham to sacrifice his (especially considering that Abraham did not have to go through with it)?

Of course, this is easy for me to say in the abstract. It would be a lot more difficult if I were the one who was suffering

Edited June 12, 2013 by Sleeper Cell

[why me]

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?

That attitude is rather cynical. With such an attitude, we can never trust anyone. Comparisons with cult leaders just do not work when it comes to Joseph Smith. Cult leaders and their movements tend to crash and burn in terrible ways. The lds church is a foundation of good. I do believe that if Joseph was such a fraudster, the church would have also crashed and burned long ago. The catholic church is not a cult nor is Islam.

[why me]

“[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

Was Angus at the private gathering? It seems that he wasn't. Angus must have been quite an old guy in 1905 if he were at that private gathering. Can his account be trusted? Or was it just hearsay that he heard from somewhere?

[DonBradley]

Was Angus at the private gathering? It seems that he wasn't. Angus must have been quite an old guy in 1905 if he were at that private gathering. Can his account be trusted? Or was it just hearsay that he heard from somewhere?

WhyMe and All,

Just FYI, "hearsay" isn't a category in historical inquiry. It's a category in law, and in polemics. Historians are quite open to accepting secondhand statements, depending on other reasons to embrace or not embrace their value. Their exclusion from the law is arbitrary, and if we had to rely on firsthand statements alone, our knowledge of the past would be greatly impoverished.

As the nephew of John Taylor, the brother of George Q. Cannon, president of the Salt Lake Stake, and a contemporary of Eliza R. Snow and Heber C. Kimball, Angus M. Cannon was well positioned to know about this conversation between Eliza and Heber. But the point I'm trying to make, while stronger if the conversation is accurately reported here, does not depend on that. Rather, I'm pointing out that Cannon was obviously able to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet while believing that he had a quite a healthy sex drive, and that he therefore would was very inclined to have sexual relations with his wives. Since Cannon was well positioned to hear about the conversation, it seems quite likely that Eliza did say this, and therefore that she was quite able to accept Joseph as a prophet and polygamous husband while knowing that he had a healthy sex drive and that this influenced his marital life in polygamy.

But even if we confine ourselves to discussing Angus Cannon, I think we have in him a model of someone who could accept Joseph Smith as a man, Y chromosome and all, as well as a prophet. My question is, why can't we do the same? Why do we so often feel the need to neuter the Prophet?

Don

[tagriffy]

But even if we confine ourselves to discussing Angus Cannon, I think we have in him a model of someone who could accept Joseph Smith as a man, Y chromosome and all, as well as a prophet. My question is, why can't we do the same? Why do we so often feel the need to neuter the Prophet?

Don

I suspect there is a reaction against all the anti-Mormon stuff that portrays polygamy as simply about sex. Brodie comes to mind, for example.

[cdowis]

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?

We will be personally held responsible for our choices. This is not a "battle of testimonies" but of individual, personal consequences for our decisions.

Hope that helps.

Edited June 12, 2013 by cdowis

[Teancum]

We will be personally held responsible for our choices. This is not a "battle of testimonies" but of individual, personal consequences for our decisions.

Hope that helps.

I honestly appreciate everyone's well thought out and meaningful comments.

[canard78]

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?

I'd have reminded myself that given Donkeys can't talk it is probably a figment of my imagination.

Either that or would have kindly asked the angel to put the sword down for a second to do the 'are you a goodie' handshake test. At which point I'd have grabbed the sword and made the Angel first take me to Zarahemla's exact geographic location and then answer whether the North Star is really Kolob. And world peace. Lots of world peace.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

It isn't a matter of size/quantity. Galileo was only one man, but he was right. It still does move. We are to be the salt of the earth. It doesn't take much salt to flavor the whole loaf.

[ERayR]

I suspect there is a reaction against all the anti-Mormon stuff that portrays polygamy as simply about sex. Brodie comes to mind, for example.

I suspect that it has some to do with the fact that our culture has reduced sex to its basest form.

[omni]

That attitude is rather cynical. With such an attitude, we can never trust anyone. Comparisons with cult leaders just do not work when it comes to Joseph Smith. Cult leaders and their movements tend to crash and burn in terrible ways. The lds church is a foundation of good. I do believe that if Joseph was such a fraudster, the church would have also crashed and burned long ago. The catholic church is not a cult nor is Islam.

I'm not sure you are responding to the correct post as I never compared Joseph to a cult leader and you failed to respond to either of my questions.

[bcuzbcuz]

I suspect that it has some to do with the fact that our culture has reduced sex to its basest form.

Whether you reduce sex "to its basest form" or not, you seem to view there is another level, that the rest of us are unaware of.

Just which level do you see as the "basest form of sex"? Can you really differentiate between the basest form of sex and sex in general? Since I have read your previous posts, I discern that you see polygamy as inconsequental to modern living. According to you, sex is measurable only in offspring. No offspring, equals no sex.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young married woman (women) married to other men. Without genetic evidence the "who" of fatherhood, is a question unanswered. Which "baseness" of their sexual relationship do you reference to?

[omni]

Your assumption is incorrect therefore your conclusion is in error.

Well apparently the church agrees with me. This from LDS.org

"This is the place where our Father in Heaven and Jesus live. It is a place where people will be happy, and it will be more beautiful than we can imagine. The people who will live in this kingdom will love our Father in Heaven and Jesus and will choose to obey Them. They must have repented of all their sins and must have accepted Jesus as their Savior. They must have been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. They must have a testimony from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Savior.

To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted."

You will agree with me that getting married in the temple and having a family is one of the most important things we can do in this life, right? Polygamy took and would continue to take away that opportunity from many righteous priesthood holders.

Edited June 12, 2013 by omni

[why me]

I'm not sure you are responding to the correct post as I never compared Joseph to a cult leader and you failed to respond to either of my questions.

What were your questions?

[ERayR]

Well apparently the church agrees with me. This from LDS.org

This is the place where our Father in Heaven and Jesus live. It is a place where people will be happy, and it will be more beautiful than we can imagine. The people who will live in this kingdom will love our Father in Heaven and Jesus and will choose to obey Them. They must have repented of all their sins and must have accepted Jesus as their Savior. They must have been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. They must have a testimony from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Savior.

To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted.

You will agree with me that getting married in the temple and having a family is one of the most important things we can do in this life, right? Polygamy took and would continue to take away that opportunity from many righteous priesthood holders.

Again your assumptions are skewing your conclusions.

[Deborah]

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?

Well since the "tens of thousands of polygamous wives" today would belong to churches or groups that are not the true church that isn't a valid comparison. And what about even today those polygamous wives who praise their lifestyle.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Deborah

[omni]

What were your questions?

Why do you see the testimonies of JS's wives as faith affirming, but not the thousands of current polygamous wives who have also received spiritual confirmations of their marriages? How large does a church have to be before it's true?

[omni]

Again your assumptions are skewing your conclusions.

I'm not going to play your games.

[omni]

Well since the "tens of thousands of polygamous wives" today would belong to churches or groups that are not the true church that isn't a valid comparison. And what about even today those polygamous wives who praise their lifestyle.

To them they absolutely belong to the true church. If you hear the descriptions of their spiritual confirmations it's exactly how we describe ours.

I could care less if they practice polygamy, as long as it's between consenting adults and is not forced. That being said, I certainly don't believe God commanded them to, do you?

[Deborah]

That being said, I certainly don't believe God commanded them to, do you?

No and that's the point. Plural marriage when not authorized by God is an abomination as they prove.

[canard78]

Again your assumptions are skewing your conclusions.

But if there will be polygamy in the celestial kingdom as an eternal law statistics make two simple assumptions: (1) there will be more women than men so sharing of a husband will be needed. (2) Male:Female ratio will be equal so some men will have to 'go without' a wife so others may have 2, 3 or 33. Or perhaps we'll bring back polyandry so some wives are shared between two husbands. Joseph and Brigham seemed ok with this.

Given people who were Mormons in this life will be out-numbered at least 1000:1 by pre-8yos making observations about the skew of single sisters in your particular unit is simply a drop in an ocean.

[canard78]

No and that's the point. Plural marriage when not authorized by God is an abomination as they prove.

But they would say you're wrong as you haven't had the spiritual witness they have had. How is Zina's spiritual witness or yours more valid than theirs.