Carol Lynn Pearson's Polygamy Survey

[rockpond]

Same thing happened to me. I ask myself the same question time after time.

I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking, how long you and Ellen have been members of the church?

I'm wondering if that might be a factor. I'm 43 and a life-long member... I don't recall anything in the survey that surprised me or that I hadn't heard before.

[EllenMaksoud]

I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking, how long you and Ellen have been members of the church?

I'm wondering if that might be a factor. I'm 43 and a life-long member... I don't recall anything in the survey that surprised me or that I hadn't heard before.

2 years

 

About the last half is Temple teaching. I live with life long Mormons and I hear somethings that are pretty strange to me. Still I have respect for their views and the teachings of the church

[rodheadlee]

Apparently Carol Lynn Pearson is bothered by the fact that some women are afraid that they will die and their husband will marry another woman for eternity, or that he will die and they will be unable to initially be sealed for eternity to whatever man they may thereafter marry, even if they feel he is a better mate than their deceased husband. She seems to be bothered by the inequality she sees in the situation. She has made an online survey about the topic. Just wondering what everyone thinks about her survey, and about her concerns.

After thinking about this for  the day . I think more people should think before they actually make the covenant to be married for all eternity. It's not to be taken lightly. They should agree on a course of action in case of death or perhaps just get married for time until they are sure about making an eternal covenant. I think many people get sealed because it's the Mormon way. I don't think I have any evidence to support that except for threads like this. I've been married for 40 years but we're not sealed. I love her deeply and we plan to get sealed but we have been through thick and thin. There are no surprises or secrets.

[rodheadlee]

I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking, how long you and Ellen have been members of the church?

I'm wondering if that might be a factor. I'm 43 and a life-long member... I don't recall anything in the survey that surprised me or that I hadn't heard before.

32 years. convert at 28. arrrgggghhhh That makes me 60.

Edited March 7, 2014 by rodheadlee

[Buckeye]

...  Brigham taught that "you couldn't rob the dead" in relation to women being sealed to more than one man.  ....

 

 

[rockpond]

Not a formal CFR, but I'd love a cite for this if you have it. It sounds like something Brigham might say, but I've never seen the quote before.

Assuming it is accurate, do you read this (as I do) to suggest that Brigham saw women as property of their husbands? I can't see another way to read the word "rob" other than the man owns the woman.

[Buckeye]

I would be careful in reading it that way (that women were property). I seem to remember hearing that BY was a proponent of women choice when it came to marriage. Meaning, they couldn't reject "the principle" but they certainly could reject a particular man. Unfortunately, I don't have a reference for that, so someone can either back me up, or tell me I'm wrong.

I imagine what BY may have meant is that you can't rob a man by taking an eternally sealed spouse after the guy has died and can defend himself and his sealing.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Buckeye

[K-2]

Some church members do believe that polygamy was human error (not from God).  That's a fair question to ask.

 

"Indifference" is the middle choice between joy, peace, sadness, or anger.  What option would you suggest putting in?

 

Right here on this thread you've been given an example of a family that experienced trouble or tension about who is going to be with whom in the next life.

Choices that were less polarized would have been better. Can't remember the wording of the question about who is going to be with who, but it seemed to me to imply a negative effect on the family rather than just negative emotion or tension alone (which could be expected to some degree). Maybe it was just my biased perspective that caused me to perceive the question that way, but hey, the title of the survey itself has the words "sealing inequality" in it, so it's not hard to assume discontent with the way things are by Carol Lynn Pearson.

[rockpond]

Choices that were less polarized would have been better. Can't remember the wording of the question about who is going to be with who, but it seemed to me to imply a negative effect on the family rather than just negative emotion or tension alone (which could be expected to some degree). Maybe it was just my biased perspective that caused me to perceive the question that way, but hey, the title of the survey itself has the words "sealing inequality" in it, so it's not hard to assume discontent with the way things are by Carol Lynn Pearson.

 

Well, it seems to me that you are making a lot of implications as well.  I think it's fair to analyze the survey.  But your statements about Sister Pearson in your opening post are not appropriate when you do not actually know her personal feelings on the matter.  There is a sealing inequality.  That's a simple fact.  So you should not assume discontent on her part unless you can back it up with a statement from her.

[Calm]

Not a formal CFR, but I'd love a cite for this if you have it.  It sounds like something Brigham might say, but I've never seen the quote before.

 

Assuming it is accurate, do you read this (as I do) to suggest that Brigham saw women as property of their husbands?  I can't see another way to read the word "rob" other than the man owns the woman.

The quote at the vey least turns a woman into a mindless airhead who can't tell the difference between true love and a man adding notches to his belt.

[JLHPROF]

Not a formal CFR, but I'd love a cite for this if you have it.  It sounds like something Brigham might say, but I've never seen the quote before.

 

Assuming it is accurate, do you read this (as I do) to suggest that Brigham saw women as property of their husbands?  I can't see another way to read the word "rob" other than the man owns the woman. 

 

 

It was standard doctrinal teaching - understood and practiced in Brigham's day.  Here are some teachings and examples:

 

 

 

"In March, Young himself passed through the ceremony (endowment) for John Twiss and Moses Whitesides, the respective deceased first husbands of his plural wives Naamah Carter (Aunt Twiss) and Margaret Pierce.  Young also received the second anointing for his wives' former husbands.  According to Susa Young Gates, both Naamah Twiss and Margaret Pierce asked Young for the privilege of being anointed unto him instead.  However, he refused to "rob the dead" and insisted on thus honoring their first husbands." - Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet by John G. Turner pg 403.

 

 

"For instance, a good man dies, who has served God in righteousness all his  days; the weary wheels of life stand still, and he goes to the world of spirits. He believed in the principles of justice, equity, righteousness, and truth, and that his rights would be held sacred to him by his brethren after he was gone. But some professed man of God comes to his widow, and wants to steal her away from him; he would rob the dead with impunity, under the ostensible garb of justice to her and her dead husband; he will tell her he is doing it out of pure love to them both, and he is going to exalt them in the kingdom of God.

 

"  JoD 1:231 - John Taylor

 

 

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~larsenbrown/Histories/elizacusworth.txt

Life of Eliza Cusworth Burton Staker whose first member husband died and who came across with the Willie-Martin company remarried in Pleasant Grove UT

 

From a poem written by her stepdaughter:

 

But she was led to Pleasant Grove

Where, lonely with his baby boy,

There dwelt a servant of the Lord

Who welcomed her with purest joy.

To love and cherish her through life. 

For they were very shortly wed.

He prized her as a faithful wife

With no desire to rob the dead.

For he was also good and true

A loyal saint of Latter-day.

Vicarious work was soon performed

To prove for him the heavenly way.

 

 

http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/l/Melinda-E-Roles-jacquie/FILE/0003text.txt

History of Isabella McMurrin Sims Smith

Pioneer of 1856

 

The year following George's death, David McKenzie, Isabella's first love, came and told her that he had

never ceased to love her and ask her if she would marry him.  She agreed, however one evening shortly after

saying yes to David, she was invited to a social at the home of Brigham Young.  President Young called her

aside and told her that David had been to see him about their proposed marriage and he desired to have the

temple sealing broken between Isabella and George.  President Young asked Isabella if that was her wish. 

"Oh, no", said Isabella, "I promised him [George] in the temple and I wouldn't break my promise."  "Well,"

said President Young, "Then we won't rob the dead, will we?"

     When David McKenzie learned that he could have Isabella for this life only and she would remain sealed

to George in the next, he said, "No, he stole her from me once, I'll not have him take her from me again in

the next world."  Isabella accepted the decision without hesitation, in spite of her great love for David, which

had been born when she was very young.

[Bernard Gui]

We know that it was JS trying to understand the Old Testament which lead to this revelation (or to the pretend revelation for those who don't think he was a prophet).  

 

For those who think that polygamy has little to do with Christ or His gospel, how do you personally understand the OT reliance on polygamy to create the House of Israel, God's chosen people?

Jesus himself was a descendent of polygamists.

[K-2]

Hey rockpond, look what I found over at Feminist Mormon Housewives:

 

by: Carol Lynn Pearson

For some time I thought I should do something about eternal polygamy. (Like I should do something about the gophers in the front yard , except that it bothers me a great deal more.)

 

 

Still think I unfairly characterized the situation?

Edited March 10, 2014 by K-2

[rockpond]

Hey rockpond, look what I found over at Feminist Mormon Housewives:

Still think I unfairly characterized the situation?

Looks like you were correct. That's all I was asking for was a statement from her to back up your assumption.

I guess, for me, that's another reason to like her.