Learning About Polygamy: "it's Like Learning You Have Cancer."

[Robert F. Smith]

Its about faith. You look at petty much any genealogy record from the mid to late 1800's from SLC and surrounding area and everyone was having large families by faithful members. So many accounts of large families building up a righteous generation. I have no problem admitting I come from large polygamous families on both my mother and father's sides. They were great men, faithful men, men of valor and high esteem. They were able to build up that righteous generation that Zion needed at that time. I stand by them. Its our history, its our doctrine and we should be proud!

You are right, Rob.  There was nothing wrong with polygamy then or now.  It is not currently part of Western culture, and anyone practicing it in the West these days is likely to get in big trouble.  But it will soon be just as legal in the United States as it is currently in Islamic countries.  What then?

[Tacenda]

Robert, I listened to a podcast just today about the Kingston group and I grew up around them, albeit I didn't know they were polygamists since they hid it well, and I did go in one of the stores as a child, there on mainstreet in Bountiful.

In the podcast it mentions that their earnings are pooled and when they need money they go to a secretary of sorts. There was/is an office in Salt Lake. And it was mentioned that those that left the community/religion didn't know how to handle money after that, and would ask the bank if they were permitted a certain amount. Because with the United Order that's what they had to do.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Tacenda

[Mars]

It can be a very traumatic experience to find out information that threatens to change your belief system. That somebody would laugh at an analogy that attempts to quantify the pain is unacceptable and insensitive.

 

It can be a very traumatic experience TO ACTUALLY LOSE A LOVED ONE TO CANCER.

 

That somebody would attempt to equate the two is unacceptable and insensitive.

 

Don't believe me?  Oh, fun!

 

"Being persecuted as a Mormon while a youth in Texas is like being persecuted as a Jew."

 

<sarcasm>

I've never heard critics of the Church tell Mormons to quit whining about being persecuted.  I don't see it as a common theme on the ex-Mormon forums or subreddits, I haven't ever been told that to my face by someone who left the Church, or anything of the sort.  Because, you see, to conjure up in your mind the difficulty and pain I go through, no metaphor is off the table.  Right?

</sarcasm>

 

Confronting the very serious predicament of crisis of faith, especially from the believing perspective that both USU78 and I share, is indeed a serious thing.  And it does merit sensitivity and sympathy on the part of the observer.  USU78's statements have absolutely zip to do with insensitivity to the person's pain and suffering.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Mars

[stemelbow]

He makes some interesting points, but there is one critical issue that Hales is blind on, and it looks like the next step that needs to be taken for LDS to deal with polygamy will be to overcome it.

Namely, it's the idea that LDS are disturbed primarily as a result of misinformation about early Mormon polygamy. Hales says:

 

As with so many other things about the Church, if there are any "antagonists" that are spreading "misinformation" or "half-truths", I suspect it is an honest mistake since spreading "information" and "whole truths" would probably be much more effective if they're trying to upset faithful LDS. There may have been a time when anti-Mormons deliberately spread lies about the Church, and if they bothered LDS, the best way to combat such lies were to tell the truth. But I suspect those days are past.

The sooner Hales and other apologists realize this, the sooner they can start dealing with the actual problem: some LDS are bothered by the truth about LDS history. And the more truthful it is, the more they are bothered by it.

But other than that, it's a great blog post.

It seems to me he did imply that members are troubled by the history itself--the "true" history?

During the past few weeks Laura and I have been approached directly or indirectly by a few area presidents, stake presidents, and bishops seeking to address the concerns of Church members that have arisen from the Church’s essays including the one discussing “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.”

Are you saying Hales is not dealing with the actual problem of some LDS being bothered by the truth about LDS history?

In a weird way, in all of this, I don't know why Hales and other apologist get blamed for this stuff. They are criticized no matter what. Either their conclusions are wrong because they still believe, or they are not addressing the real problem which is people are leaving, most often because they come to different conclusions than Hales and other apologists.

[JLHPROF]

Kingston group still does and FLDS, heck they even live the United Order. Seems the LDS group quit both and shun these groups like the plague. And there are many more out there living the law of polygamy, and believe that in order to be saved they must live it, I wonder where they got that notion? It sure isn't biblical.

 

They got that notion from the early prophets of the Church.  Groups like the AUB and Centennial Park attempt to hold fast to the teachings of the early prophets (as they understand them).  Groups like the Kingstons and FLDS have corrupted the teachings beyond all recognition.

[HappyJackWagon]

Can we just accept that both a diagnosis of cancer and an acute faith crisis are difficult and should be treated with sympathy and support? Does one have to be better/bigger/worse than the other?

 

This thread got me thinking about the fundamentalist LDS. Once in a while I get a form letter from Warren Jeffs prophesying and giving commandments. I don't know why I get these but the letters are terrible. Ridiculous. They are usually in list form and the spelling, grammar, punctuation is deplorable but its sent out on official FLDS letter head. Does anyone else receive these.

 

I'm guilty of occassionally reading these letters out loud to my wife so we can chuckle.

[JLHPROF]

Can we just accept that both a diagnosis of cancer and an acute faith crisis are difficult and should be treated with sympathy and support? Does one have to be better/bigger/worse than the other?

 

This thread got me thinking about the fundamentalist LDS. Once in a while I get a form letter from Warren Jeffs prophesying and giving commandments. I don't know why I get these but the letters are terrible. Ridiculous. They are usually in list form and the spelling, grammar, punctuation is deplorable but its sent out on official FLDS letter head. Does anyone else receive these.

 

I'm guilty of occassionally reading these letters out loud to my wife so we can chuckle.

 

No.  I wouldn't even give anything Warren Jeffs produced any attention.  To my mind not all fundamentalist groups are created equal, and the FLDS are just about the worst of the bunch.

[ERayR]

It can be a very traumatic experience to find out information that threatens to change your belief system. That somebody would laugh at an analogy that attempts to quantify the pain is unacceptable and insensitive.

 

To liken it to getting a cancer diagnosis is hyperbole in the extreme and is utterly ridiculous.

[ERayR]

Kingston group still does and FLDS, heck they even live the United Order. Seems the LDS group quit both and shun these groups like the plague. And there are many more out there living the law of polygamy, and believe that in order to be saved they must live it, I wonder where they got that notion? It sure isn't biblical.

 

You have a knack for irrelevancy.  It was rescinded thus it is irrelevant who now practices it.  It only emphasizes their apostasy.

[ERayR]

I disagree, it's a cancer of a different sort. A cancer of losing a faith paradigm. One so deep, but unlike cancer, you usually suffer w/o sympathy and even feel like it's all your fault, and even feel like if people knew about it they would run away from you as if you had something they might catch. So an emotional cancer, incurable nearly. God bless those that have dealt with someone with the physical cancer though, my heart goes out to them.

 

The difference is that cancer is not a choice and losing faith is a choice.  I know you are going to protest that but is pure and simply a result of what connotations you choose to believe.concerning the information you come across.

[USU78]

It can be a very traumatic experience to find out information that threatens to change your belief system. That somebody would laugh at an analogy that attempts to quantify the pain is unacceptable and insensitive.

 

The assertion was hyperbolic in the extreme, monumentally inapt, and insulting to the very real suffering of very real people, especially where:

 

1.  Polygyny never has been a secret; and

2.  Those who claim to have been lied to are themselves lying, either to themselves, us, or both.

[Nofear]

Hyperbole or not, the point is not to belittle people for having some difficulty with polygamy. We don't poke fun of and mock people if they have difficulty with paying tithing or obeying the Word of Wisdom. At least with those there is a great deal of clarity. How much more should we then have patience with those who struggle over a practice for which the theological foundation isn't as clear cut?

[ERayR]

Hyperbole or not, the point is not to belittle people for having some difficulty with polygamy. We don't poke fun of and mock people if they have difficulty with paying tithing or obeying the Word of Wisdom. At least with those there is a great deal of clarity. How much more should we then have patience with those who struggle over a practice for which the theological foundation isn't as clear cut?

 

The difference is that cancer is not a choice and losing faith is a choice.  I know you are going to protest that but is pure and simply a result of what connotations you choose to believe.concerning the information you come across.

[Mars]

no one is mocking the person going through the faith crisis

 

we are mocking the comparison to discovering you have inoperable cancer, and deciding to cook meth to make a ton of money before you die.  or at least maybe the first part.

[cinepro]

The assertion was hyperbolic in the extreme, monumentally inapt, and insulting to the very real suffering of very real people, especially where:

 

1.  Polygyny never has been a secret; and

2.  Those who claim to have been lied to are themselves lying, either to themselves, us, or both.

 

 

Here is the actual quote that is quoted:

 

When asked about this phenomenon, Richard Bushman, author of Rough Stone Rolling, counselled presiding authorities, friends, and family members:

     The need is to take these people seriously. [For them] it is like running into a great wall. It is like learning you have cancer or that your mother died. It is something very real in your life and it should never be belittled.

To those whose testimonies have been shaken or who confront a faith crisis, Bushman acknowledged:

     Once you encounter this stuff it can be shocking, terrifying, and you just feel frozen and hardly know what to do. And then when the evidence begins to mount up you just say, “I better get out of here,” and turn away from it. And from then on    there is a tendency to just read more and more things that confirm your decision and there’s more evidence that it is all phony.

As with all analogies, it's an imperfect one. But I think the meaning it conveys is correct, and I'm not sure where the impulse to argue with it comes from. Sure, it's possible Bushman drastically misunderstands the emotions of someone who "learns they have cancer." But I also think it's possible that some people in this thread drastically misunderstand the experiences some people have when they learn certain things about LDS history. So if I have to choose, I'm going to stick with Bushman and assume it's the people in this thread who misunderstand.

Edited January 27, 2015 by cinepro

[juliann]

 

 

Here is the actual quote that is quoted:

 

As with all analogies, it's an imperfect one. But I think the meaning it conveys is correct, and I'm not sure where the impulse to argue with it comes from. Sure, it's possible Bushman drastically misunderstands the emotions of someone who "learns they have cancer." But I also think it's possible that some people in this thread drastically misunderstand the experiences some people have when they learn certain things about LDS history. So if I have to choose, I'm going to stick with Bushman and assume it's the people in this thread who misunderstand.

Cancer isn't "emotion." No matter how painful losing a testimony is, it doesn't kill you. Cancer killed my husband. Obviously, Bushman has not had the experience of being diagnosed with terminal cancer. Losing belief does not mean the loss of income or even a job with the loss of insurance. It doesn't mean the loss of a parent for young children, or perhaps worse, the loss of a young child to a parent.  And so on.  I understand the point he was trying to make but it is a very, very poor analogy.

[Tacenda]

It can kill you if you take your life over it, and it most definitely kills some relationships, and therefore can make it difficult to live. I know this may sound ridiculous to many of you, but don't judge until you've truly walked in their shoes. I'm living testimony, I'm not a drama queen believe me. But ever since I finally came out somewhat to my old bishop and new stake president (same person), I feel I'm looked at as a strange species. If only they'd just come out and ask me about my testimony issues it wouldn't feel so weird. They just act like everything is the same as before. They treat me as if they have to skirt around the issue I'm having. Feeling like an outcast in my own confines...neighbors, friends and some family members, even though they don't go out of their way to do it, it's very subtle. I remember that unspoken feeling of being sorry for those that are inactive and feeling that they are not in the fold so to speak. Although I'm still basically in the fold but don't hold a current recommend.

It can drive you crazy and you feel like a mental patient. I honestly feel like my life as I knew it is over, and what is in it's stead is a feeling of helplessness. How come a religion does that? If it wasn't so much more the institute vs. Jesus Christ, this wouldn't be a problem. We're told to believe far more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the gift of salvation. And I wholeheartedly went with this, until it crossed over to being unchaste and wrong, some of the things I see that prophets have done in their lives. When that happens it is a gut punch. Especially when you put these men on a pedestal. So each day is a lonely road. And it may be that I'm mentally unfit, it may be that others that have had challenges with their testimony, can go on to lead perfectly fine lives, I've just not been able to do it. Now I'm dealing with a damaged relationship with my sister who is a true believing latter day saint in every way. I think she doesn't really want to have much to do with me other than the obligatory relationship that comes with being a sibling.

But in my case I've still got a marriage, in others that's not the case. Especially for the anti's out there. They lose a spouse and maybe that's why they're antagonistic, because the church came before their marriages.

I don't want to bore more, so I'll end it for now.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

It can kill you if you take your life over it, and it most definitely kills some relationships, and therefore can make it difficult to live.  I know this may sound ridiculous to many of you, but don't judge until you've truly walked in their shoes.  I'm living testimony, I'm not a drama queen believe me.  But ever since I finally came out somewhat to my old bishop and new stake president, I feel I'm looked at as a strange species.  If only they'd just come out and ask me about my testimony issues it wouldn't feel so weird.  They just act like everything is the same as before.  They treat me as if they have to skirt around the issue I'm having.  Feeling like an outcast in my own confines neighbors and friends, even though they don't go out of the way to do it, it's very subtle.  I remember that unspoken feeling of being sorry for those that are inactive and feeling that they are not in the fold so to speak.  Although I'm still basically in the fold and I don't hold a current recommend. 

 

It can drive you crazy and you feel like a mental patient.  I honestly feel like my life as I knew it is over, and what is in it's stead is a feeling of helplessness.  How come a religion does that?  If it wasn't so much more the institute vs. Jesus Christ, this wouldn't be a problem.  We're told to believe far more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the gift of salvation.  And I wholeheartedly went with this, until it crossed over to being unchaste and wrong, some of the things I see that prophets have done in their lives.  When that happens it is a gut punch.  Especially when you put these men on a pedestal.  So each day is a lonely road.  And it may be that I'm mentally unfit, it may be that others that have had challenges with their testimony, can go on to lead perfectly fine lives, I've just not been able to do it.  Now I'm dealing with a damaged relationship with my sister who is a true believing latter day saint in every whit.  I think she doesn't really want to have much to do with me other than the obligatory relationship that comes with being a sibling.

 

But in my case I've still got a marriage, in others that's not the case.  Especially for the anti's out there.  They lose a spouse and maybe that's why they're antagonistic, because the church came before their marriages. 

 

I don't want to bore more, so I'll end it for now.         

 

And it is still controlled by the choices you choose to make. 

[bluebell]

As with all analogies, it's an imperfect one. But I think the meaning it conveys is correct, and I'm not sure where the impulse to argue with it comes from. 

 

It seems like it comes from people who have actually been diagnosed with cancer or have had a loved one who has died from it.

[teddyaware]

It can kill you if you take your life over it, and it most definitely kills some relationships, and therefore can make it difficult to live.  I know this may sound ridiculous to many of you, but don't judge until you've truly walked in their shoes.  I'm living testimony, I'm not a drama queen believe me.  But ever since I finally came out somewhat to my old bishop and new stake president, I feel I'm looked at as a strange species.  If only they'd just come out and ask me about my testimony issues it wouldn't feel so weird.  They just act like everything is the same as before.  They treat me as if they have to skirt around the issue I'm having.  Feeling like an outcast in my own confines neighbors and friends, even though they don't go out of the way to do it, it's very subtle.  I remember that unspoken feeling of being sorry for those that are inactive and feeling that they are not in the fold so to speak.  Although I'm still basically in the fold and I don't hold a current recommend. 

 

It can drive you crazy and you feel like a mental patient.  I honestly feel like my life as I knew it is over, and what is in it's stead is a feeling of helplessness.  How come a religion does that?  If it wasn't so much more the institute vs. Jesus Christ, this wouldn't be a problem.  We're told to believe far more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the gift of salvation.  And I wholeheartedly went with this, until it crossed over to being unchaste and wrong, some of the things I see that prophets have done in their lives.  When that happens it is a gut punch.  Especially when you put these men on a pedestal.  So each day is a lonely road.  And it may be that I'm mentally unfit, it may be that others that have had challenges with their testimony, can go on to lead perfectly fine lives, I've just not been able to do it.  Now I'm dealing with a damaged relationship with my sister who is a true believing latter day saint in every whit.  I think she doesn't really want to have much to do with me other than the obligatory relationship that comes with being a sibling.

 

But in my case I've still got a marriage, in others that's not the case.  Especially for the anti's out there.  They lose a spouse and maybe that's why they're antagonistic, because the church came before their marriages. 

 

I don't want to bore more, so I'll end it for now.         

 

You asked "how can a religion do that?" The instant I read that question I instantly recalled the following words from the Saviour. With all due deference and concern for your troubles, I wonder if you think the Lord sounds a bit harsh and lacking in sensitivity when He says the following:

 

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10)

 

 

Edited January 27, 2015 by teddyaware

[cinepro]

Cancer isn't "emotion." No matter how painful losing a testimony is, it doesn't kill you. Cancer killed my husband. Obviously, Bushman has not had the experience of being diagnosed with terminal cancer. Losing belief does not mean the loss of income or even a job with the loss of insurance. It doesn't mean the loss of a parent for young children, or perhaps worse, the loss of a young child to a parent.  And so on.  I understand the point he was trying to make but it is a very, very poor analogy.

But that's not what he said. He didn't say "learning about polygamy is like being diagnosed with terminal cancer and dying from it." He said that some people have a similar reaction:

Once you encounter this stuff it can be shocking, terrifying, and you just feel frozen and hardly know what to do.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say that people who are told they have cancer find it to be a shocking and terrifying experience, and that they feel "frozen" and "hardly know what to do." It's not a statement that is meant to belittle the experience of dying from cancer. It is meant to convey how some people react to learning about the disturbing aspects of LDS polygamy.

[USU78]

But that's not what he said. He didn't say "learning about polygamy is like being diagnosed with terminal cancer and dying from it." He said that some people have a similar reaction:

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say that people who are told they have cancer find it to be a shocking and terrifying experience, and that they feel "frozen" and "hardly know what to do." It's not a statement that is meant to belittle the experience of dying from cancer. It is meant to convey how some people react to learning about the disturbing aspects of LDS polygamy.

 

Yes.

 

There is a condition called Histrionic Personality Disorder.

 

It's a serious problem.

 

I'm glad you brought it up.

[Nevo]

It seems like it comes from people who have actually been diagnosed with cancer or have had a loved one who has died from it.

 

Like almost everybody, I've had loved ones who've died from cancer. But, as cinepro has noted, Bushman didn't compare losing one's belief to having cancer. I don't know why so many here persist in this rather egregious misreading.

 

It's clear from the context that he's comparing the shock that some people experience upon learning that Joseph Smith secretly married other men's wives and young teenagers behind Emma's back and proposed to apostles' wives while their husbands were on missions, etc., to the shock of getting news about a death in the family or a cancer diagnosis. Whether or not that's an overreaction, some people do react that way. And understandably so, in my opinion.

[bluebell]

Like almost everybody, I've had loved ones who've died from cancer. But, as cinepro has noted, Bushman didn't compare losing one's belief to having cancer. I don't know why so many here persist in this rather egregious misreading.

 

Probably because they don't feel the same way about the comparison that Bushman and others do.  I don't really have an opinion on the comparison as i've never dealt with cancer, but i'm not seeing cinepro's explanation or clarification of the quote really changing anyone's mind any.

 

 

[Uncle Dale]

...

Namely, it's the idea that LDS are disturbed primarily as a result of misinformation about early Mormon polygamy. Hales says:

 ...

 

As one who has both battled cancer and the humiliation of descent

from latter-day polygamist ancestors, I can at least try to sympathize.

 

In times past I would spend days at the microfilm readers in Ogden

libraries, consuming, line-upon-line, the editorials and news reports

published in the "Deseret News" and the "Salt Lake Herald" of the

late 19th century.

 

Practically every other word thus published was either in defense of

plural wifery, or, more indirectly, encouraging and praising the Saints

in their supposed zeal and support for "the eternal principle."

 

Column upon printed column heralded the supposed progress of

polygamy throughout the world -- forecasting how it would one day

become the standard family relationship of all righteous people.

The wives of Utah polygamists sent letters and petitions to the

leaders in Congress and to individual representative, pleading

that they be saved from the "persecution" of those who could not

comprehend the sanctity and immutability of Divine Revelation.

They LOVED being plural wives -- They wanted NOTHING else...

 

The columns of the LDS newspaper hinted at the fact "the sisters"

required worthy, priesthood-holding husbands, in order to escape

banishment to the lower kingdom in the afterlife -- and that those

husbands simply MUST BE polygamists, in order to progress up to

the destined honor and task of forming worlds and populating them

with elect offspring -- to rise to the lofty heights where Joseph Smith

himself "mingled with gods."

 

And each of these celestial realms-destined ladies, felt honored and

joyful, at being yet another jewel in their shared husband's radiant

crown of glory.

 

Then.... I went down to Salt Lake City and started reading the back

files of the "Tribune" and the other gentile papers from ages gone by.

And there, I found the stories of many of those same plural wives told

in less cheerful and saintly language -- of how many, many of them

lived in shame and woe, wishing they had never entered polygamy.

 

The same stories were related in the Josephite papers, but I did not have

access to them until Bro. Jim Kimball kindly issued me a researcher's pass

to the Mormon Church's microfilms. There the accounts given were even

more disheartening than those in the "Valley Tan" and the "Union Vedette."

For these faded flowers of Deseret had not forfeited their Book of Mormon

testimonies, nor their undying love for the Head of the Seventh Dispensation.

In all ways, (but that of professing, supporting and broadcasting polygamy)

they remained faithful saints -- practically indistinguishable from their

husband-sharing sisters, left back in "The Valley."

 

But -- there was a bitter pill hidden away in those 1860s and 1870s

testimonies from RLDS ladies, "escaped" from Utah Territory. The more

I read of such things, the more evident it became to my unhappy mind,

that polygamy was NOT invented by Brigham Young -- and WAS indeed

a secret practice of the Smith brothers, the apostles, and other sainted

dignitaries at vanished Nauvoo. God forbid!!! Perish the thought!!!

 

And.... if that were indeed the case... and Sister Emma had lied to us...

then (agony!) three-quarters of the justification for the "Reorganization"

was based upon 1840s pious falsehoods and 1850s white-washings!

 

Which was worse? Seeing those black, positive biopsies -- or discovering

the lies told (in both of the latter-day churches) -- regarding 1840s and

early 1850s plural marriage?

 

I think, probably, the latter.

 

UD

Edited January 28, 2015 by Uncle Dale