Why So Anti-Polygamy?

[3DOP]

In a mere thirteen years there seems to have been a seachange regarding the LDS view of polygamy. I can remember Mormons defending polygamy only a short while ago at ZLMB. I thought they did fine too. I don't think polygamy hurts you guys in the least. I think you all can defend having practised polygamy as well as practising it again.

So why is it that now Mormons seem so disturbed about it? Or have never even heard about it? Where have you been? You don't have to be LDS to know why the Mormons went to Utah.

A viable religion isn't one that adapts itself to the times, but expects for the times to adapt to the religion. Catholics are in the same boat as far as being ashamed of their past because modern people don't like it. Modernity wants to squash revelation and morality and that makes both our churches the enemy. It is a losing proposition for religion to conform to the changing fads of the times. The true faith, whatever it is, will not make a truce with modernity.

Go ahead if you want, jump on the bandwagons of the 21st Century. That isn't how to last for a thousand years. You'll be irrelevant by the 22nd.

Stay the course.

3DOP

[rongo]

I'm not among those Mormons who are quick to explain every difficult subject (polygamy, priesthood ban, etc.) as "mistakes." I do agree with you that this seems to be the trend with many, even among FAIR list members (not all, though). I agree with you that polygamy doesn't hurt us at all, and I for one don't run away from it like cockroaches running away from a light.

[why me]

Go ahead if you want, jump on the bandwagons of the 21st Century. That isn't how to last for a thousand years. You'll be irrelevant by the 22nd.

Stay the course.

3DOP

You are right. The lds have allowed the critics to control this debate and I have often wondered why. I am proud of the polygamy heritage. I think that it is a wonderful part of lds history. And I don't ever remember it being a negative discussion in the past. But with the rise of the internet, suddenly, it has become a bedbug for the lds. Why?

One reason is that the lds members have allowed the world to enter into their church when it comes to such discussions. Either members believe that the lds church is true or not. If true, then polygamy was part of god's plan when it was instituted in the early 1830's. For some strange reason, it seems that many members are now ashamed of it. I must also blame the modern church for taking it off the discussion. It wasn't in the past. We never discussed it in a shameful way in the past. Just the opposite. We were proud of it as being a part of mormon history.

[why me]

Also, I do believe that there are some Mormon women apologists that have had posted negative opinions of polygamy, looking at it more from the aspect of the world, sex and women's rights. When it should be looked at from the aspect of God and why he felt that it needed to be instituted. Mormons need to take back control of this discussion or the church will be constantly defending itself and a church on the defensive with wishywashy reasonings will lose its relevancy. And this is not just for polygamy but for other issues as well.

[rongo]

For some strange reason, it seems that many members are now ashamed of it. I must also blame the modern church for taking it off the discussion. It wasn't in the past. We never discussed it in a shameful way in the past. Just the opposite. We were proud of it as being a part of mormon history.

I agree with this. I think that many members are taking their cue from the tone of GAs, who have been self-consciously overly PR minded (in spades) about polygamy and other issues. Another one is an unspoken seeking to downplay the supernatural or miraculous. While in word and in theory, this does not extend to foundational things like the First Vision, angelic ministrations, etc., in practice, such things are "uncomfortable" today for many, including many leaders, it would seem. Not for me and my house, though . . .

[JarMan]

I haven't noticed a "sea change" regarding polygamy among LDS (especially not amongst the rank and file, non-internet Mormons). I have seen a lot more discussion regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy. And discussion about some of the more troubling aspects of it. But as far as attitudes towards the general practice of polygamy in Utah in the 19th Century, I'm not seeing anything different than what I've always seen.

[Robert F. Smith]

In a mere thirteen years there seems to have been a seachange regarding the LDS view of polygamy. I can remember Mormons defending polygamy only a short while ago at ZLMB. I thought they did fine too. I don't think polygamy hurts you guys in the least. I think you all can defend having practised polygamy as well as practising it again.

So why is it that now Mormons seem so disturbed about it? Or have never even heard about it? Where have you been? You don't have to be LDS to know why the Mormons went to Utah.

A viable religion isn't one that adapts itself to the times, but expects for the times to adapt to the religion. Catholics are in the same boat as far as being ashamed of their past because modern people don't like it. Modernity wants to squash revelation and morality and that makes both our churches the enemy. It is a losing proposition for religion to conform to the changing fads of the times. The true faith, whatever it is, will not make a truce with modernity.

Go ahead if you want, jump on the bandwagons of the 21st Century. That isn't how to last for a thousand years. You'll be irrelevant by the 22nd.

Stay the course.

3DOP

You're clearly more aware of the "sea change" in LDS attitudes toward polygyny than I am, Rory. After all, I don't even know what ZLMB was or is!

When I was baptized in 1950, there were only about 1 million Mormons. Today there are 14 million or so, and many of them came into the LDS religion with considerable distaste for the very idea of polygyny. Add to that biblical illiteracy (and ignorance of Patriarchal marriage practices) generally outside the LDS community, and defensiveness is bound to set in. Then too, the Mormon ethnos was at one time very strongly oriented toward anti-capitalistic cooperative endeavors (including the United Order, which the Feds destroyed) of the sort common among early Christians. The strong shift to the ideological and political right among Mormons has been remarkable, and carries with it iconic status for the nuclear family, even though the Book of Mormon emphasizes the extended, multigenerational family (Mosiah 2:5, recently discussed by Stephen Ricks on the Interpreter Blog at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-note-on-family-structure-in-mosiah-25/ ).

Mormons would likely be very unhappy to practice polygyny again, even if it became permissible again by modern revelation. Of course it will become legally permissible within the next decade, and some groups will find that to their liking. The U.S. Supreme Court is steadily broadening the meaning of marriage, and Reynolds v. the U.S. is likely to be overturned.

[MichelleD]

I come from polygamous ancestors (both sides of my family) and love reading their journals. I'm proud of my heritage but also find some aspects troubling (my great-great-grandfather left for a mission and returned with a 15 year old bride much to the chagrin of his other 5 elderly wives...he was over 60 at the time and his new bride was treated horribly by his family and Utah Mormon community).

I think it was HOW they lived the principle that upsets some (like my example above). Joseph Smith married young girls too and also kept many of his marriages from Emma. That doesn't set well with many today when they learn of this.

Then there is his polyandry and that really is difficult to reconcile (especially the active member's wives that Joseph married). I know there's a lot we don't understand, but this one was tough to learn about and not have it change how I felt about Joseph Smith.

I'm just being honest here. I'm still active and still believe in the truthfulness of the church. I'm just hoping I'll have a greater understanding of many issues at some point and I'm counting on our church leaders to begin answering questions about this and other issues soon.

[teddyaware]

In a mere thirteen years there seems to have been a seachange regarding the LDS view of polygamy. I can remember Mormons defending polygamy only a short while ago at ZLMB. I thought they did fine too. I don't think polygamy hurts you guys in the least. I think you all can defend having practised polygamy as well as practising it again.

So why is it that now Mormons seem so disturbed about it? Or have never even heard about it? Where have you been? You don't have to be LDS to know why the Mormons went to Utah.

A viable religion isn't one that adapts itself to the times, but expects for the times to adapt to the religion. Catholics are in the same boat as far as being ashamed of their past because modern people don't like it. Modernity wants to squash revelation and morality and that makes both our churches the enemy. It is a losing proposition for religion to conform to the changing fads of the times. The true faith, whatever it is, will not make a truce with modernity.

Go ahead if you want, jump on the bandwagons of the 21st Century. That isn't how to last for a thousand years. You'll be irrelevant by the 22nd.

Stay the course.

3DOP

For quite some time, it's been my considered opinion that the Latter-day Saints will never again practice plural marriage, at least not until the millennial reign of Christ; and perhaps not even then. There is one major reason why I believe polygamy isn't going to stage a comeback for a long, long time:

In the wake of eventual worldwide acceptance of 'gay marriage,' more barriers of traditional morality will crumble, with a world ripening in iniquity embracing just about any form of 'marriage' arrangement one could imagine. To the LDS leaders and its members at large, this form of secularly approved polygamy will be viewed as a gross perversion of a holy principle, an unauthorized violation of the solemn heavenly command that children of men must strictly observe the law of marital monogamy only, except under the most extraordinary of circumstances.

To yours truly, it's seems highly unlikely God would inspire His Prophets to command the members of the church to practice plural marriage under such societal conditions, thereby seeming to place the imprimatur of the Lord's Church on an evil world's ungodly practices. No, the Lord will not allow His people to seemingly join with the wicked in their riotous death-spiral dance of self-destruction prior to the second coming of Christ.

"24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2)

Edited July 23, 2013 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

I come from polygamous ancestors (both sides of my family) and love reading their journals. I'm proud of my heritage but also find some aspects troubling (my great-great-grandfather left for a mission and returned with a 15 year old bride much to the chagrin of his other 5 elderly wives...he was over 60 at the time and his new bride was treated horribly by his family and Utah Mormon community).

I think it was HOW they lived the principle that upsets some (like my example above). Joseph Smith married young girls too and also kept many of his marriages from Emma. That doesn't set well with many today when they learn of this.

Then there is his polyandry and that really is difficult to reconcile (especially the active member's wives that Joseph married). I know there's a lot we don't understand, but this one was tough to learn about and not have it change how I felt about Joseph Smith.

I'm just being honest here. I'm still active and still believe in the truthfulness of the church. I'm just hoping I'll have a greater understanding of many issues at some point and I'm counting on our church leaders to begin answering questions about this and other issues soon.

We have a tendency to be shocked that people in the early 19th century didn't think and act the way we do today. Norms were quite different, and it is unfair to hold people from another era to the standards which we hold correct today. Early marriage, for example, was not uncommon. After all, schools (if they were available) didn't continue beyond the 8th grade, and "young girls" were considered "young women" who were quite capable doing virtually any household chore from cooking to babycare. Today, we think of 14-15 year-old girls as being helpless and incompetent. A century and a half ago they were considered women, and, if married, part of a larger extended family.

As to sealing patterns in Joseph's time, these included sealings of men to men (adoption), as well as married women to men other than their husbands. Joseph said that he was welding the whole human family together, although we have now (since Pres Woodruff) adopted a quite different genealogical pattern of sealing families together in a systematic way. I just heard an excellent paper on this subject at the annual Summer Seminar Symposium at BYU: Carl Cranney, "Web of Kin or Chain of Family: Theological Implications of Early Mormon Sealings to 1894," presented July 11, 2013. Hopefully, it will be published soon.

See especially Samuel Brown, In Heaven As It Is On Earth (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

[Hannah Rebekah]

Also, I do believe that there are some Mormon women apologists that have had posted negative opinions of polygamy, looking at it more from the aspect of the world, sex and women's rights. When it should be looked at from the aspect of God and why he felt that it needed to be instituted. Mormons need to take back control of this discussion or the church will be constantly defending itself and a church on the defensive with wishywashy reasonings will lose its relevancy. And this is not just for polygamy but for other issues as well.

I agree with you totally. I'm proud of my polygamist heritage. When the Saints were being attacked and the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional it was the Mormon women who were the ardent defenders of polygamy. I love the fact that it was once described as God's form of welfare. I say I wouldn't want God to bring it back but I think most of us know that if the Lord did most of us would try to live it as righteously and graciously as possible. There is something to be said about the sisterhood that many of the sister wives had with each other and the things that they taught each other.

[why me]

I come from polygamous ancestors (both sides of my family) and love reading their journals. I'm proud of my heritage but also find some aspects troubling (my great-great-grandfather left for a mission and returned with a 15 year old bride much to the chagrin of his other 5 elderly wives...he was over 60 at the time and his new bride was treated horribly by his family and Utah Mormon community).

I think it was HOW they lived the principle that upsets some (like my example above). Joseph Smith married young girls too and also kept many of his marriages from Emma. That doesn't set well with many today when they learn of this.

Then there is his polyandry and that really is difficult to reconcile (especially the active member's wives that Joseph married). I know there's a lot we don't understand, but this one was tough to learn about and not have it change how I felt about Joseph Smith.

I'm just being honest here. I'm still active and still believe in the truthfulness of the church. I'm just hoping I'll have a greater understanding of many issues at some point and I'm counting on our church leaders to begin answering questions about this and other issues soon.

I think that the church needs to take control of the conversation and not allow the critics to have their opinions unchallenged. I think that the one-sided conversation does affect members. And with the internet this one-sided conversation can reach millions and millions of people and it has reached millions. It will be only when the lds church steps forward and has their own conversation about such issues as Joseph's polygamy will the church can the upper hand.

We also need to remember that the early members in Utah were very much aware of Joseph's polygamy and this did not make them waver as they headed out west in search of a safer land. I think that the conversation began to fade into the distance as time went on and when polygamy was no longer practiced.

[why me]

I agree with you totally. I'm proud of my polygamist heritage. When the Saints were being attacked and the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional it was the Mormon women who were the ardent defenders of polygamy. I love the fact that it was once described as God's form of welfare. I say I wouldn't want God to bring it back but I think most of us know that if the Lord did most of us would try to live it as righteously and graciously as possible. There is something to be said about the sisterhood that many of the sister wives had with each other and the things that they taught each other.

You are right. What seems to have happened is that the critics or exmormon women now control this conversation and many lds women shirk in horror about the practice. I admire the sisters who were engaged in it out of faith and out of a testimony that was a true principle and a commandment from God. They showed resilience and sisterhood. I am proud of lds history in general and it is worth defending and polygamy is one of those principles that lds women should not back away from. They should be proud of the past generations of lds women who made this sacrifice and be proud of their polygamous history. And likewise for the men too.

[Hannah Rebekah]

I come from polygamous ancestors (both sides of my family) and love reading their journals. I'm proud of my heritage but also find some aspects troubling (my great-great-grandfather left for a mission and returned with a 15 year old bride much to the chagrin of his other 5 elderly wives...he was over 60 at the time and his new bride was treated horribly by his family and Utah Mormon community).

I think it was HOW they lived the principle that upsets some (like my example above). Joseph Smith married young girls too and also kept many of his marriages from Emma. That doesn't set well with many today when they learn of this.

Then there is his polyandry and that really is difficult to reconcile (especially the active member's wives that Joseph married). I know there's a lot we don't understand, but this one was tough to learn about and not have it change how I felt about Joseph Smith.

I'm just being honest here. I'm still active and still believe in the truthfulness of the church. I'm just hoping I'll have a greater understanding of many issues at some point and I'm counting on our church leaders to begin answering questions about this and other issues soon.

Maybe the Church Leaders are in the same place as you and don't understand as well but press on with faith that all things will be revealed to us in time. God wants us to live by faith and so maybe our expectation should be to have to know everything but only have the desire to live righteously. Besides, I believe that prophets live on a different plane and are tested and judged differently. There are things we can never know in this life.

[why me]

Sometimes I am embarrassed just how weak members are in face of the criticism of critics. I don't think that many of us would have survived the trek to the west as the early saints did. We seem weak and defensive. But the saints back then, held on, sacrificed, believed in their church and settled in what is now Utah after much persecution by its enemies, enemies who could not accept lds beliefs. But the saints pushed on and held firm. Now...many fall by the wayside...they have forgotten the song Come, Come, Ye Saints ...and become ashamed of their history. And polygamy is just one of the issues that they are ashamed of.

[media=]

Edited July 23, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Maybe the Church Leaders are in the same place as you and don't understand as well but press on with faith that all things will be revealed to us in time. God wants us to live by faith and so maybe our expectation should be to have to know everything but only have the desire to live righteously. Besides, I believe that prophets live on a different plane and are tested and judged differently. There are things we can never know in this life.

I also think that institutions can be judged by the seeds it produces. And the lds church has produced beautiful seeds to live by. If polygamy can be deemed evil, it certainly didn't produce evil seeds. Why? Because it was a righteous principle when it was practiced by the church. When we see what are lds values today and how they set a good standard for the world we can only say that the church is not evil but good and that it is led well. No one can judge the lds harshly for the seeds it plants.

[Hannah Rebekah]

I also think that institutions can be judged by the seeds it produces. And the lds church has produced beautiful seeds to live by. If polygamy can be deemed evil, it certainly didn't produce evil seeds. Why? Because it was a righteous principle when it was practiced by the church. When we see what are lds values today and how they set a good standard for the world we can only say that the church is not evil but good and that it is led well. No one can judge the lds harshly for the seeds it plants.

Exactly...many expected the Mormons to die in the desert when they came west and I truly believe that because of polygamy they flourished in the wilderness. Sure, I've seen the statistics of how not many members were polygamist or that they really didn't have big families...it doesn't matter, it was the glue that held them all together. They say for great men there is always a great woman behind him. I suspect more than one great woman behind a man would really make him even better.

[Thinking]

You are right. The lds have allowed the critics to control this debate and I have often wondered why. I am proud of the polygamy heritage. I think that it is a wonderful part of lds history. And I don't ever remember it being a negative discussion in the past. But with the rise of the internet, suddenly, it has become a bedbug for the lds. Why?

Because some of us discover that what we were taught (official or otherwise) is far from reality.

I was taught the following in Sunday School and seminary.

• Polygamy was instituted because there were so many widows that the women outnumbered the men.
  
• It was necessary to help complete the restitution of all things.
  
• Joseph Smith only had 2 or 3 wives.
  

I was not taught the following by anybody.

• Joseph married other men's wives.
  
• Joseph married some mid-teens while in his 30's.
  
• Joseph and the Church publicly denied the practice.
  

[EllenMaksoud]

Exactly...many expected the Mormons to die in the desert when they came west and I truly believe that because of polygamy they flourished in the wilderness. Sure, I've seen the statistics of how not many members were polygamist or that they really didn't have big families...it doesn't matter, it was the glue that held them all together. They say for great men there is always a great woman behind him. I suspect more than one great woman behind a man would really make him even better.

So, like I think you totally nailed it. The men needed more women to help them.

I had a brief enounter with Mormons in 2005, and if I remember correctly polygamy was never mentioned. I don't think there is a thing to be ashamed of, if you believe that Heavenly Father ordained it while it was being done.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Because some of us discover that what we were taught (official or otherwise) is far from reality.

I was taught the following in Sunday School and seminary.

• Polygamy was instituted because there were so many widows that the women outnumbered the men.
  
• It was necessary to help complete the restitution of all things.
  
• Joseph Smith only had 2 or 3 wives.
  

I was not taught the following by anybody.

• Joseph married other men's wives.
  
• Joseph married some mid-teens while in his 30's.
  
• Joseph and the Church publicly denied the practice.
  

Sorry you think your bubble has been burst but the information you seem to be crying over just doesn't seem to be all that terrible to whine about. I just don't get people like you. Sorry if I'm being insensitive but it's time to grow up. I learned later there was no Santa Clause you don't see me throwing a fit because of it now. Christmas is still as wonderful as ever.

[Alan]

Very good OP.

We can learn a lot from the Catholics, Copts and Orthodox. They take the long term view.

My personal opinion regarding plural marriage is that it was from God. However, I don't believe Joseph practiced it.

But Brigham et al did and we don't need to hide that.

The world will continue to be critical of us over this. It is interesting to note that the US media ran articles during the the recent presidential campaign pointing out that Romney was descended from polygamists three generations ago (the inference being that was a bad thing i.e. a criticism), while totally ignoring the fact that Barack Obama's own father was a polygamist.

[Thinking]

Sorry you think your bubble has been burst but the information you seem to be crying over just doesn't seem to be all that terrible to whine about. I just don't get people like you. Sorry if I'm being insensitive but it's time to grow up.

Growing up is what helped me see reality. When I read D&C 132 I don't hear God's voice. When I think of Henry Jacobs I don't see God's hand in that situation.

I learned later there was no Santa Clause you don't see me throwing a fit because of it now. Christmas is still as wonderful as ever.

Christ did not invent the story of Santa Claus so his non-existence is irrelevant to whether a religious person celebrates Christmas. This a poor comparison to the doctrine of polygamy that was introduced by Joseph Smith in his official capacity as prophet, seer, and revelator. Should not a prophet be judged by the doctrines that he teaches?

[why me]

Because some of us discover that what we were taught (official or otherwise) is far from reality.

I was taught the following in Sunday School and seminary.

• Polygamy was instituted because there were so many widows that the women outnumbered the men.
  
• It was necessary to help complete the restitution of all things.
  
• Joseph Smith only had 2 or 3 wives.
  

I was not taught the following by anybody.

• Joseph married other men's wives.
  
• Joseph married some mid-teens while in his 30's.
  
• Joseph and the Church publicly denied the practice.
  

We need to gain a perspective. I believe that as time went on there was no need to teach these things. Certainly, members knew all this in the past. But I do believe that after the Declaration, polygamy began to fade into the background and it wasn't discussed so much. And it would have remained this way except for the Internet and the critics bringing up their own interpretations and bringing worldly values into the practice. Do you think that Joseph had a wonderful time being a polygamist? Was he running around the camp with a smile on his face? Can a man actually hide his lust? And of course, the spiritual experiences of the women involved matter for nothing...the confirmations that were received after prayer before they accepted the principle and the spiritual experience that this confirmation brought to them. This is often overlooked by the members who are wavering.

But on the other hand like I said, the church should now take charge of the conversation and lead the discussion. With the publication of the JSPs it is now beginning.

[why me]

Growing up is what helped me see reality. When I read D&C 132 I don't hear God's voice. When I think of Henry Jacobs I don't see God's hand in that situation.

Christ did not invent the story of Santa Claus so his non-existence is irrelevant to whether a religious person celebrates Christmas. This a poor comparison to the doctrine of polygamy that was introduced by Joseph Smith in his official capacity as prophet, seer, and revelator. Should not a prophet be judged by the doctrines that he teaches?

But did Henry? It seems so. We can never know all the ins and outs of a relationship. But what we do know is that Zina was her own women. She was a latter day saint following what she believed was god's will and she wrote about it with faith and strength.

When I read that section I read a man who knew that he was in a tough spot. He knew that he would need to begin something that caused him immense grief in the early thirties. I don't think that it was easy for him. But on he went..for better or for worse. o you really believe that Joseph would have done this on his own? There would be plenty of women that he could have bedded in New York and Washington for a price if he so wished. Did he? A lustful guy is a lustful guy and he would not have missed the opportunity. But...no record of him bedding any women on this trips or in neighboring counties.

So you wish to judge Joseph based on polygamy? We can all form judgements but we also need to see the bigger picture. The women involved, why they accepted the principle and their spiritual experiences that they received before they accepted.

In the old testament what did prophets teach? Some of those things they taught and said would be very difficult for us to follow today. Should we judge them? Also, when it comes to christ, we must also realize that the gospels are not perfect. They are narratives pieced together from stories that were passed down. Do we really know that Christ said what he said exactly as written in the gospels? Religious scholars say no. Can we assume that the writers wrote what they wrote to strengthen the faith of the early saints? And what of the differences in the gospels when mentioning the ministry of christ? And if Christ made such an impact why he is seldom mentioned by ancient historians. I only know of Josephus.

But with Joseph we have a much more clearer biographical record. We can see the human in him and we can see the prophet in him. We can research and write a biography of him. But with the ancient prophets and apostles we can't. Few details are available. We know nothing of the human side of them...only the faith promoting aspects of their lives.

Edited July 23, 2013 by why me

[rongo]

I come from polygamous ancestors (both sides of my family) and love reading their journals. I'm proud of my heritage but also find some aspects troubling (my great-great-grandfather left for a mission and returned with a 15 year old bride much to the chagrin of his other 5 elderly wives...he was over 60 at the time and his new bride was treated horribly by his family and Utah Mormon community).

You're not talking about John Hess, are you? He's one of my ancestors (as with you, both sides of my family practiced polygamy), and he married a teenager in his advanced years and would take her carriage riding to show her off, while leaving the elderly wives at home. One of my young women's presidents and I used to tease each other, because she was descended from the young wife, and I was descended from the "first wife."