Nytimes: "it's Official: Mormon Founder Had Up To 40 Wives"

[Silhouette]

Maybe if you had to live it you might be more understanding. Terryl Givens has some good comments on the topic in his new book on Mormon theology. He writes:

For most plural wives (and the men as well), the practice [of plural marriage] was a costly burden. Some women thrived under 'the principle.' And a surprising number rose to defend plural marriage when it was under attack, revealing a stalwart solidarity under siege, but also giving insight into their own understanding of its foundations and purposes. . . . The male narrative of Smith and Young especially emphasized the dynastic dimension to eternal families. Much nineteenth-century rhetoric about plurality emphatically positioned plural wives as instrumental to male exaltation and kingdom-building. Women, by contrast, often emphasized the benefits to society and posterity; for themselves, it was more a crucible than a blessing. . . .

As the practice grew and its immense challenges became manifest, a common objective of plural marriage hypothesized by its female adherents in particular was that it represented a higher spiritual practice, a refiner's fire that purified rather than thwarted emotional attachment. . . . If marital love survived, it was not the love of Victorian companionate marriage, with two soul mates caught up in a unitary bond to the exclusion of all else. And if romantic love had to die in the process, as it did, it must be because a higher form of love awaited the faithful practitioners of plural marriage. . . .

Novelistic accounts of Utah polygamy, which abounded throughout the nineteenth century, depicted women as duped, deluded, or coerced into the practice, in which men reveled. In actual fact, recognizing that few of either gender were happy with the practice, Young and his successors increasingly turned to the language of trial and spiritual refining to characterize plural marriage—which validated the women in their experience of the practice and shaped their understanding of its purpose accordingly. . . .

Because the practice was suspended but the revelation never superseded, the significance of plural marriage in the eternities hovers in indeterminacy. However, the association of polygamy in Mormon rhetoric with Abrahamic sacrifice, and the explicit juxtaposition of those topics in section 132, suggests an answer. . . . In the logic of Abrahamic sacrifice, as in the historical case of polygamy, the essence of the test is in the person's willingness to provisionally suspend a moral imperative (do not practice human sacrifice) in deference to a divine mandate to perform an ethically repugnant act. . . .

In the case of polygamy, the association with the Abrahamic offering of Isaac would be perverse if the act in question were transformed into a supernal principle, rather than a costly and agonizing trial. Even its most fervent defenders persisted, in the final analysis, in seeing the practice as a wrenching schooling, a test of faith, and the means to a greater end, not the blessed end itself: 'In obeying this law it has cost [us] a sacrifice nearly equal to that of Abraham.... There is nothing that would induce me to...lose my hold upon that crown which awaits all those who laid their willing but bleeding hearts upon the altar,' said one plural wife. Young's second wife Mary Ann concurred: 'God will be very cruel if he does not give us poor women adequate compensation for the trials we have endured in polygamy.' Lorena Bent found nothing to praise in a 'principle which had caused so much sacrifice, heartache, and trial.' Heavenly continuation of those trials would hardly constitute compensation.

— Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 283–287, passim.

Sorry, I still don't get it. "Heavenly continuation of those trials would hardly constitute compensation" just doesn't make sense to me. It indicates a complete lack of understanding of the promises about what heaven, and especially exaltation, will be like. There ARE no "trials" in Heaven.

[Silhouette]

Deleted

Edited November 12, 2014 by Silhouette

[Silhouette]

Well when you put it like that, I can't imagine why any woman would have a problem with the idea.

As I said, my comments apply ONLY IF we find that polygamy is required for exaltation. And if your comment indicates your understanding of my meaning, (the "only if" part) then I agree with you. Indeed, if we find that this is, indeed the case, well, when put like that, I can't see why any woman would have a problem with the idea either.

[theplains]

The wording "no other scholar has ever" exaggerates the strength and longevity of the case.  Throughout his lifetime, Joseph Smith publically claimed he was a monogamist.  There are no church or state records that indicate he ever married anybody other than Emma.  From the first edition of the D&C in 1835 until 1852, the official position of the Church was that the polygamy was strictly forbidden.  Throughout her life, Emma Smith claimed Joseph only had one wife.

 

 

Even the History of the Church, volume 6, seems to have Joseph claiming he was a

monogamist.

 

"Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your

own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the

oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph

more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and

having seven wives, when I can only find one.

 

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all

perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience;

and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors".

 

Regards,

Jim

[Brian 2.0]

The wording "no other scholar has ever" exaggerates the strength and longevity of the case. Throughout his lifetime, Joseph Smith publically claimed he was a monogamist. There are no church or state records that indicate he ever married anybody other than Emma. From the first edition of the D&C in 1835 until 1852, the official position of the Church was that the polygamy was strictly forbidden. Throughout her life, Emma Smith claimed Joseph only had one wife.

In fact, until August of 1852, over eight years after his death, the only evidence that Joseph Smith was a polygamist was the word of anti-Mormons.

1852 was the year when the Church told the general membership that the revelation now known as Section 132 even existed.

If Joseph Smith wasn't a polygamist... then a lot of people lied.

If Joseph Smith was a polygamist... then a lot of people lied.

Talk about a rock and a hard place!

Edited November 12, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[VideoGameJunkie]

The church is still true.

[Pahoran]

The very best possible response to this article was posted on another board by a poster who goes by Sammy Jankins.  He said:

Is it too late for Monson to declare the Times a nuisance and try to dismantle their printing press?

And that's the "very best possible," is it?

The "very best possible" for what purpose? To give you and your fellow anti-Mormons something to grunt and oink about?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited November 12, 2014 by Pahoran

[Senator]

The problem is that the general public and many members do not understand the difference between married and sealed.

 

And why should they have an understanding? Given the esoteric treatment of such a notion within the church, it's hard to blame the world at large for not knowing, let alone understanding the nuance.

[Yirgacheffe]

I disagree with an absolute statement that we won't be exalted unless we live polygamy... I agree that there is no official Church teaching regarding whether we will be required to live polygamy to be exalted.  We do know that today a widower can be sealed to a subsequent wife and chldren...  and why wouldn't he be... i.e., a man's wife dies and leaves him with children, then he meets and marries a second wife and has children with her, why wouldn't he want that family also to be with him in the eternities, and in exaltation.

I do agree that if there is polygamy in exaltation, those participating will be completely happy because there is nothing in Heavenly Father's kingdom that isn't perfect and for our happiness.  But I do not believe it will be a requirement because of the Church's position, regardless of what BY has said.

And I agree our eternal perspective will be different than what we can understand as mere humans... 

 

GG

I have a friend who had just that happen to her.  She was married with 2 kids one 6 and the other 2, she was pregnant with their third child when he was killed in an accident.  She later went on to marry another man, he's the husband we know, they had two more kids.  She didn't stop loving her first husband and made sure to keep his memory alive and stay connected with his family, her second husband was glad to have more "family" in his wife's first in-laws.  Why wouldn't she want to be with both families, and why wouldn't each father want to be with his children?  Personally I know of more women in this situation than I do men, and I don't see any comfort for them in temple sealings, in my mind the vague mainstream Christian view offers more comfort to these women.

[Yirgacheffe]

On the subject of the original article, it appears that Drudge picked it up and the article has been picked up all over the world by dozens of news sites.

 

Google News

 

After the relatively mild reception to the previous essays, I doubt Church leaders saw this coming.  I don't think this is a good thing.

Why not?

[Brian 2.0]

The problem is that the general public and many members do not understand the difference between married and sealed.

- Married only

- Sealed only

- Married and sealed

Are we to gather some info as to how these relationships were different from each other based on the difference between married and sealed?

[cdowis]

Brian,

 

"sealed vs married"  ==>>

 

Under certain circumstances it is technically possible for a man to be sealed to a woman to whom he had never been married.  (Note: in modern practice, both of them have to be deceased)

 

Hope that helps to demonstrate the difference.

Edited November 12, 2014 by cdowis

[Calm]

I have a friend who had just that happen to her.  She was married with 2 kids one 6 and the other 2, she was pregnant with their third child when he was killed in an accident.  She later went on to marry another man, he's the husband we know, they had two more kids.  She didn't stop loving her first husband and made sure to keep his memory alive and stay connected with his family, her second husband was glad to have more "family" in his wife's first in-laws.  Why wouldn't she want to be with both families, and why wouldn't each father want to be with his children?  Personally I know of more women in this situation than I do men, and I don't see any comfort for them in temple sealings, in my mind the vague mainstream Christian view offers more comfort to these women.

They seal the women to all their husbands when dead and have for quite some time, less often but appearing to be increasing in occurrence is allowing a living woman to be sealed to a living husband without cancellation of first sealing. It requires First Presidency approval at this point and is not included in the Handbook as an option.

Removed from the handbook is the claim that it is believed that the woman would be required to choose which husband she wanted of all she was sealed to, a very significant removal IMO given they've been making an effort to remove speculation from manuals a lot this past decade or so and stick with stuff that is verified as revelation.

[Analytics]

1852-2014.  That means that this stuff has all been in the public domain for 162 years.

 

So 'splain, please, Lucy, why this is suddenly news?

 

Section 132 has been in the public domain for that time period. Information about whether and how Joseph Smith acted upon that revelation has not been.

 

The reason this topic is difficult is we are talking about who Joseph Smith married; we are talking about the basic demographical information of an assiduous record keeper in very recent history. It should be quite easy to have definitive knowledge about who he married and when through marriage certificates, church records, and civil records. 

 

We don’t have any of those things for any of his marriages, other than his marriage to Emma.  Rather, we have records of him denying polygamy.  It’s intuitive that if there are no civil or religious records of two people being married, and if those two people publically deny being married, we have definitive proof that they are not married.  Further, Joseph Smith publically claimed that his personal records were so exhaustively comprehensive, the fact that they didn’t mention him getting married constituted proof that he wasn’t married to anyone other than Emma.

 

Yes, relatively recent scholarship has vindicated William Law’s accusations of Joseph Smith being married to people other than Emma.  But the historical context of the reason why this question is thorny ought to be understood. 

Edited November 12, 2014 by Analytics

[Analytics]

And that's the "very best possible," is it?

The "very best possible" for what purpose? To give you and your fellow anti-Mormons something to grunt and oink about?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Nothing makes me feel more secure that I made a solid point than when you reply with with nothing other than a disrespectful personal attack in violation of the board’s guidelines.  Thanks.

[sdc999]

1852-2014.  That means that this stuff has all been in the public domain for 162 years.

 

So 'splain, please, Lucy, why this is suddenly news?

IMHO, I would say this is suddenly news because it comes straight from the church.  You can still ask 10 members ands still get 10 different answers.  Just look over at 1million mormons on Facebook.   The members can't even agree with each other exactly what was or wasn't done between Joseph and his wives or who was a wife by marriage or just sealing. The oft overused car dealer analogy.  Go to the toyota guy if you want to know about toyotas.  Members need to wear badges that label  themselves as knowledgable or folklore specialist.    That could clear up a lot. 

[Senator]

Brian,

 

"sealed vs married"  ==>>

 

Under certain circumstances it is technically possible for a man to be sealed to a woman to whom he had never been married.  (Note: in modern practice, both of them have to be deceased)

 

 

Can you point to any examples of this in the modern church?

 

[Alan]

It is my understanding that the live offspring of deceased parents in a common law marriage (ie. where a couple lived together but were never married) can be sealed to them following their sealing. They were never married, nor are they married by proxy. They are sealed by proxy.

 

Saints who live in countries where divorce is not permitted by law (until recently, Brazil for example) have been permitted to be sealed when they were not married. Often they couldn't be married because one or both of the parties was legally married to someone else and could not obtain a divorce.

The church allowed them to be baptized, ordained, endowed and sealed etc.

 

The world is not black and white.

[Hoosier]

What I find strange is that in a time where there was not the readily available birth control that there is today, Joseph could have 30-40 wives, yet not have any known children (that I've heard of anyway) by any of them except Emma. What does that say about his relationship with all of these wives?

[The Nehor]

What I find strange is that in a time where there was not the readily available birth control that there is today, Joseph could have 30-40 wives, yet not have any known children (that I've heard of anyway) by any of them except Emma. What does that say about his relationship with all of these wives?

That the rhythm method is foolproof.

[JLHPROF]

It is my understanding that the live offspring of deceased parents in a common law marriage (ie. where a couple lived together but were never married) can be sealed to them following their sealing. They were never married, nor are they married by proxy. They are sealed by proxy.

 

Saints who live in countries where divorce is not permitted by law (until recently, Brazil for example) have been permitted to be sealed when they were not married. Often they couldn't be married because one or both of the parties was legally married to someone else and could not obtain a divorce.

The church allowed them to be baptized, ordained, endowed and sealed etc.

 

The world is not black and white.

 

The Church errs on the side of caution.  If they aren't sure, they'll often allow the ceremonies to take place anyway.

 

God will follow the eternal laws of marriage with perfect understanding and according to order.

 

It will take 1000 years of temple work to get families organized the way God wants them.

Not every sealing will be ratified by God, much as we'd like to believe otherwise.  But only God can judge which ones will.  D&C 132:18.

Edited November 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Hoosier]

I've seen stake dances. Mormons have no rhythm.

[cdowis]

Can you point to any examples of this in the modern church?

 

I asked this specific question to our Temple President and he confirmed it ==>> a man and woman who were never married can be sealed, but only after both are deceased.

 

I guess he would know.

[Tacenda]

What I find strange is that in a time where there was not the readily available birth control that there is today, Joseph could have 30-40 wives, yet not have any known children (that I've heard of anyway) by any of them except Emma. What does that say about his relationship with all of these wives?

Joseph was hiding polygamy, he wouldn't want the women to get pregnant, have you ever heard of other methods of birth control, before modern ones? Also, there may be offspring, Josephine for one. DNA testing has been limited to one sex, they haven't tested all the cases.

[JLHPROF]

Joseph was hiding polygamy, he wouldn't want the women to get pregnant, have you ever heard of other methods of birth control, before modern ones? Also, there may be offspring, Josephine for one. DNA testing has been limited to one sex, they haven't tested all the cases.

 

It's true.  And the simple fact is, while Joseph may have consummated more marriages than we realize, he probably had no further opportunities with these wives.  

 

It's a bit much to assume Joseph had multiple opportunities timed perfectly during each wife's ovulation period during the maximum of 3 years he was married to any of them.

 

On average, 50% of couples take 3 months of repetitive trying during ovulation to conceive.

It's pretty safe to say Joseph didn't get three months of trying at the right time with these wives he didn't live with.

The no children argument just doesn't prove a thing against sexual relations.

 

 

 

http://www.babycenter.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-pregnant

• 30 percent get pregnant within the first cycle (about one month)
• 59 percent get pregnant within three cycles (about three months)
• 80 percent get pregnant within six cycles (about six months)
• 85 percent get pregnant within 12 cycles (about one year)
• 91 percent get pregnant within 36 cycles (about three years)
• 93 to 95 percent get pregnant within 48 cycles (about four years)