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

[JLHPROF]

I need more information on this.  Are we talking "dead in two weeks cancer", or "sorry but we have to replace your sphincter with this handy drawstring but you will live" cancer?

 

Welcome back - I missed your moderate viewpoint!

[KevinG]

Thanks,

 

Just popping in.  I had a major back surgery and am trying to "catch up" at work.  It doesn't leave me a lot of breaks or blog time.

 

...and yes I'm feeling smart aleky today!

[Uncle Dale]

I need more information on this.  Are we talking "dead in two weeks cancer", or "sorry but we have to replace your sphincter with this handy drawstring but you will live" cancer?

 

Probably most of us have some rogue cells doing

bad things, somewhere in our bodies. The problem

arises when they are discovered, grouped together,

and either increasing in situ, or spreading to other

areas and to other organs and systems.

 

If a person has gone so long without proper diagnosis,

as to face the "dead in two weeks" development level,

then he/she was probably already feeling very ill and

would know, almost instinctively, of the grave danger.

 

I watched my late next door neighbor, Gregg, go through

exactly this sort of "knowing" but not really wanting to know.

At a point very far along in his undiagnosed carcinoma,

he already knew that he had melanoma, and that his

evident liver problems might very likely stem from other,

internal malignancies -- yet, he went off to spend a sickly

summer in Scotland, before returning, "facing the music,"

and eventually passing away, the victim of what might have

at least been treatable to the extent of relieving his pain

and prolonging his life.

 

Having witnessed all of that, up close, often in his own home

with him, I am determined to make better decisions myself.

 

But, from an emotional reaction standpoint, even what at

first appears to be mild, treatable cancer, can come as a

great shock -- and should -- for it can be one in the same

with the "dead in two weeks" kind, if not treated properly.

 

UD

[KevinG]

Uncle,

 

You are correct.  I probably should not treat cancer as something to joke about.  I was trying to illustrate the silliness of the original article and may have missed the mark a bit.

[Guest]

Brian Hales has a fascinating essay about how some members of the Church are dealing with the polygamy essays.  He quotes Bushman, who observes that for some LDS, learning the details about early Mormon polygamy is "like learning you have cancer." “It is Like Learning You Have Cancer”: Helping those with DoubtsHe 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.

While growing up Baptist and taking Bible classes (like seminary) things relating to polygamy and those considered great men, it did not seem righteous in any way. It sickened me to read about how Abraham turned out Hagar and his son into the desert to die. Jacob, was a poor husband and father to all but Joseph. I guess knowing the OT as well as I did, helped me to put into perspective actions in the early Church. Also, before I joined the Church in Germany, the Elders told me of many of these things. I still struggle with the entire concept of polygamy, but if wrong in the restoration...then it has to be wrong always. Our critics point to polygamy as the reason Joseph was not a Prophet (well one of the primary ones) and give OT Prophets as pass.

[Calm]

So I have been thinking about the analogy for several days now and have finally settled on some sort of chronic disorder that is life changing, maybe even life threatening....but only if not addressed properly.

I'll use diabetes as that is the one I'm familiar with that others are too.....it can be for some a huge shock at first, especially for those who had no real warning (talking about type one) with it not being in the family. Where did it come from and why me now? Was there something we might have done to avoid it? We thought we were living right, to protect ourselves and our loved ones but it still happened and we've learned it wasn't something we could have intentionally avoided, it just happens sometimes.

Others are prepared for it having relatives with the same problem or having had issues that they knew made them susceptible...and perhaps they were able to prepare for it even and thus the shock is relatively minor and they can move into control phase very quickly.

Once the initial shock is over with, we have the ability to choose how we are going to react to it...in the sense there are many options. Our personalities and our choices up to that time will of course influence whether we choose to approach dealing with the changes to our life intelligently, with caution and deliberation or with fear, even denial. We can choose to control the diabetes or to let it control us. Extreme cases exist where control is very difficult and requires a lot of attention due to sensitivities and complicating factors. Others are able to gain great control relatively quickly and even if at times unexpectedly get thrown an off reaction, reassertion control quickly by paying attention to their needs and responding appropriately.

Others choose to focus on their own emotional reactions rather than dealing with the actual disorder. They focus on the injustice of it all, "why me?" is not a question to explore and inform but a justification for feeling like a victim. They want others to solve their problem for them, if they are willing at all to even face it or they may just give up...why bother trying to control diabetes at all since I will never feel as good as I once did (instead of looking at it as I can feel good, but it will be different than I used to feel and it won't be so simple).

Or they may respond in assertive ways some days and slide back into passive or angry or fearful ways other days....or some other combination.

And some people won't have access to the resources that could help them control it while others have plenty of access but won't take advantage of them because it is too much work in their view, it means admitting there is actually a problem, they prefer the role of a victim or another reason. We should never assume that everyone having issues is in the latter group right off, there may be very valid reasons out of their control that they don't have access to needed resources (financial, location, education, cultural, etc).

I don't think medical problems are the only decent analogy, I can see a financial crisis such as a job loss could be applied or an accident such as a house fire or flood. I've read a book by a friend who is involved in rescue missions for those literally lost in the wilderness and he's applied techniques learned to survive not only the experience, but the aftermath to personal crises in general. Basically it is all about how we approach personal crisis management, whether we see ourselves as isolated, victims, lost or whether we are proactive in our own rescue attempts, see ourselves as capable, able to meet challenges and are willing to take the time to appraise, learn and make realistic judgments rather than insisting on an immediate solution that will fix things now! or we tell ourselves "why bother", allow fear to gain control, focus on what we don't have rather than what we do or a dozen and more other things that can keep us wandering in our own personal wilderness, starving and suffering without hope when in many cases we may even be carrying all we need to survive with us if we just made the effort to look and think and learn.

[Calm]

I need more information on this.  Are we talking "dead in two weeks cancer", or "sorry but we have to replace your sphincter with this handy drawstring but you will live" cancer?

Oh, how I've missed you.

[Calm]

 

But, from an emotional reaction standpoint, even what at

first appears to be mild, treatable cancer, can come as a

great shock -- and should -- for it can be one in the same

with the "dead in two weeks" kind, if not treated properly.

 

UD

I think that is the most useful part of the analogy....if one is realistic and willing to deal with even some extremely distressing or painful treatments, one can come often come through it healthy...not unchanged, but perhaps even in better shape healthwise if a lot of effort is made.

Otoh, I don't like cancer as the analogy because it is out of the control of the individual so much, one is much more reliant on treatments done to one rather than treatments one can do for oneself. Survival rate is highly dependent on what these treatments the sufferer is more or less passive for rather than on how proactive in self treatment one is.

[Calm]

PROF:

"Pretty much all of them"

There were thousands of women involved, how many autobiographies of plural marriage wives have you read as opposed to hearing tidbits of their stories here and there?

[Calm]

 

Yes it's hard.  Yes it's painful.  Yes it hurts and causes suffering.  And it's supposed to be.  Just ask our Savior.

Simply because something is hard though doesn't mean it is always sanctifying, even if those participating in it believe it is.

For example, I have strong doubts in the spiritual effectiveness of self flagellation and other similar hardships selfimposed to challenge or purify the natural man (or for other worthy, but IMO misguided reasons).

[ERayR]

But you seem to ignore the difficulty it caused, particularly the difficult on women who lived it. It wasn't all rosey, surely.

 

This could be checked out.  Did anybody think to poll the "Sister Wives" group for their opinion?

[JLHPROF]

PROF:

"Pretty much all of them"

There were thousands of women involved, how many autobiographies of plural marriage wives have you read as opposed to hearing tidbits of their stories here and there?

 

That's not a nice thing to imply.  Is there a particular one you think I've skipped?

I mentioned Ann-Eliza's, I've read Helen Mar's autobiographical statement, I've read Fanny Stenhouse's tell all.

Which do you think I have missed that would completely change my perspective to think plural marriage is an abomination?

 

 

Simply because something is hard though doesn't mean it is always sanctifying, even if those participating in it believe it is.

For example, I have strong doubts in the spiritual effectiveness of self flagellation and other similar hardships selfimposed to challenge or purify the natural man (or for other worthy, but IMO misguided reasons).

 

Well of course not.  I'm only going off the teachings of the prophets of God who actually lived it, and the sayings of many of these women who endured the struggle.  What other option do we legitimately have when it comes to plural marriage?

[Uncle Dale]

I think that is the most useful part of the analogy....if one is realistic and willing to deal with even some extremely distressing or painful treatments, one can come often come through it healthy...not unchanged, but perhaps even in better shape healthwise if a lot of effort is made.

Otoh, I don't like cancer as the analogy because it is out of the control of the individual so much, one is much more reliant on treatments done to one rather than treatments one can do for oneself. Survival rate is highly dependent on what these treatments the sufferer is more or less passive for rather than on how proactive in self treatment one is.

 

Perhaps I can relate, just a little, to some of the current LDS members'

reactions to suddenly learning things about past polygamy that they

never knew about.

 

In my early years, as an RLDS, I came across this topic almost constantly;

but that was because it was one of the foundational aspects of the RLDS,

and because I was "stationed" in Utah, where, as an associate missionary

with Seventy John Thum, I came up against this Mormon past practically

every time that we engaged potential LDS investigators.

 

But, as the years passed, and I became more centered in what was going

on in Independence (than in what was going on in Utah), I noticed that the

topic was hardly ever mentioned. In fact, the leaders who were just then

concocting the soon-to-be-realized "Community of Christ," were carefully

deleting all references to that history and controversy. A new generation

was growing up, in what would become Community of Christ, who knew

absolutely nothing of latter-day polygamy -- not even that the Reorganization

was founded upon opposition to it.

 

So, I saw young members react with surprise, disbelief, and even revulsion

at suddenly being exposed to that not-so-distant history.

 

Typically, the first response was "No -- that cannot be!" -- Followed by, "How

dare you say such things about Joseph Smith!" -- or "Look, part of what you

told me may be true, but those Nauvoo sealings were not actual marriages.

I'll agree to that much, because Emma herself admitted it. But no more than

that, OK?"

 

But, even a twenty-year-old sophomore at Graceland, sooner or later, would

realize the weight of the disclosure -- and, in some cases, the last I ever

heard from them was something like, "Look, Mr. Broadhurst, I really do not

wish to discuss these things. There are so many other, better things in the

Church to think about -- so, let's just try and forget this dismal stuff."

 

Not exactly the same reactions that a person would naturally have in facing

news of a life-changing illness; but maybe there are parallels to be found.

 

UD

[Tacenda]

Perhaps I can relate, just a little, to some of the current LDS members'

reactions to suddenly learning things about past polygamy that they

never knew about.

In my early years, as an RLDS, I came across this topic almost constantly;

but that was because it was one of the foundational aspects of the RLDS,

and because I was "stationed" in Utah, where, as an associate missionary

with Seventy John Thum, I came up against this Mormon past practically

every time that we engaged potential LDS investigators.

But, as the years passed, and I became more centered in what was going

on in Independence (than in what was going on in Utah), I noticed that the

topic was hardly ever mentioned. In fact, the leaders who were just then

concocting the soon-to-be-realized "Community of Christ," were carefully

deleting all references to that history and controversy. A new generation

was growing up, in what would become Community of Christ, who knew

absolutely nothing of latter-day polygamy -- not even that the Reorganization

was founded upon opposition to it.

So, I saw young members react with surprise, disbelief, and even revulsion

at suddenly being exposed to that not-so-distant history.

Typically, the first response was "No -- that cannot be!" -- Followed by, "How

dare you say such things about Joseph Smith!" -- or "Look, part of what you

told me may be true, but those Nauvoo sealings were not actual marriages.

I'll agree to that much, because Emma herself admitted it. But no more than

that, OK?"

But, even a twenty-year-old sophomore at Graceland, sooner or later, would

realize the weight of the disclosure -- and, in some cases, the last I ever

heard from them was something like, "Look, Mr. Broadhurst, I really do not

wish to discuss these things. There are so many other, better things in the

Church to think about -- so, let's just try and forget this dismal stuff."

Not exactly the same reactions that a person would naturally have in facing

news of a life-changing illness; but maybe there are parallels to be found.

UD

UD, having grown up in the LDS version and not the RLDS version of the Mormon church, I'm amazed that my experience is similar to yours. And it's not like I have an excuse, you do because it was preached that JS was monogamist. I don't think it was preached that he was monogamous, but darn near close, on my side, it just wasn't preached that he wasn't. Preached is the operative word here.

As far as the OP and that it's like hearing you have cancer when first learning about JS's polygamy. I think it's about as life changing as having treatable cancer with about a 75% curable rate. I think it felt like I was never going to recover but with chemo (MDDB, Stay LDS & many good podcasts, etc.) I think I now feel I won't die (leave the church yet), especially after some radiation (true LDS History facts) and more chemo (good Mormon people)!

It's a bad analogy but par for the course!!

ETA: But my treatment has taken nearly 7 or 8 years!

Edited January 30, 2015 by Tacenda

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

ETA:  But my treatment has taken nearly 7 or 8 years!  

 

Your situation sounds like it's been more advanced than mine. But,

if things are now looking up a bit, I say "hang in there!"

 

As to disclosures about our religious past, I realize that published

history and preaching cannot always cover all of the details -- and,

that if the object at hand is faith-promotion, then all of those past

details may be of secondary importance.

 

More than once I was told that it is the duty and responsibility of

local leaders and educators to "defend the Church," as a first

priority -- that, if there were thus any errors or mis-statements made,

the blame would fall upon the shoulders of the topmost leaders;

and that such things were a matter of concern between themselves

and God (and not a concern of the general membership).

 

That was all good and well, I then supposed -- but how do I go

about trusting the teachings and counsel of an "authority"

(either past or present) who thus tells me the wrong things --

or who is withholdfing information I need in order to obtain

a clear understanding in matters of history and doctrine?

 

I never did receive a good answer to THAT kind of question. To

even ask such a thing was to put the very authority of the upper

leadership to question -- to undermine the Power of the Priesthood.

 

So, I eventually gave up trying. I'll study history without the guiding

counsel of superiors who tell me such things. And, if I determine

that Joseph Smith III, or his mother (or even his father) cannot be

trusted in certain instances, I'll let the responsibility for making that

conclusion fall upon my own shoulders (and not upon some unnamed

apostle or first presidency member at Church headquarters).

 

Oh well...

 

UD

Edited January 30, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Tacenda]

That's a stinkin healthy way to look at it Uncle Dale!!  I think that I'm about to the point of thinking all churches are manmade with a little inspiration mixed in.  And now hold that God very well could have adopted the LDS church or individuals!  You take care UD, you've been part of my treatment plan for sure!!

[bcuzbcuz]

Yes, well we all know your negative viewpoint on this practice as lived by men of God.  Personally, I'll go with the teachings of those who actually lived the law and its attendant blessings rather than our modern day worldly sensibilities.

Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F., Heber, and all the apostles from their times were good and righteous polygamists.  As were more of the scriptural prophets than I could name, including the super righteous Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon.

You want to believe polygamy is an abomination, go for it.  But you aren't even close to right.

"Yes, well we all know your negative viewpoint on this practice" Good, and if it´s not something against board policies, I feel free to express my opinion, repeatedly.

Joseph lied about enagaing in polygamy, and for good reason. His wife, and by wife, I mean Emma, chose to believe in his lies, and for good reason.

My mistake was believing the tailored truth about Joseph´s polygamy for many years.

I would not qualify for polygamy, nor would I ever want to. I prefer monogamy and everything that that entails. I have one wife, I love her and she can trust me to never bring another woman into our home nor even dream of any such thing.

Can you say the same thing?

[JLHPROF]

I would not qualify for polygamy, nor would I ever want to. I prefer monogamy and everything that that entails. I have one wife, I love her and she can trust me to never bring another woman into our home nor even dream of any such thing.

Can you say the same thing?

 

Nope.  My wife and I discussed this at length, and should God ever choose to reinstate it she says she would expect me to do his will.

And I thank God every night for a woman of such faith because I too doubt that I would ever "qualify" for polygamy.  But she expects me to be good enough to.

[Calm]

 

Not exactly the same reactions that a person would naturally have in facing

news of a life-changing illness; but maybe there are parallels to be found.

 

UD

I know a number of people with diabetes who pretend they can live just the same way with it as they used to without it.

[Uncle Dale]

Joseph lied about enagaing in polygamy, and for good reason...

 

she can trust me to never bring another woman into our home nor even dream of any such thing.

 

 

Not just Joseph, but his brothers, Hyrum and William. I can more or less

excuse Hyrum. When he spoke before the Saints at Nauvoo, telling

them that Martha Brotherton had not been coerced into accepting plural

marriage in the upper story of Nauvoo's red brick store, he was technically

correct (in the way he worded that denial, at least).

 

William I cannot so easily forgive. He was absolutely a polygamist and

accused of it during his own lifetime. Yet he chose to lie repeatedly to

the Saints of the Reorganized Church (which he eventually joined)

making them think that the entire practice was the creation of Brigham.

 

As for polygamy being wrong in every possible situation -- I'm not so sure.

 

Imagine, if you can, the situation of a Robinson Cursoe, stranded decades

ago on a remote island, with little hope of rescue. Had two female castaways

come ashore, how was he to regard and treat them?

 

Or reverse the situation, and Rosie Cursoe is the stranded person, and

two fellows were cast by the waves upon her lonely beach?

 

Beyond such improbable fantasies, I tire of trying to imagine. I'll not go

out into the night with torches and pitchforks hunting down polygamists.

Should I sit on a jury considering a case in which one of them tried

to coerce his own version of young Martha into plural marriage, I

might well vote for the maximum allowable penalty, however.

 

UD

[Calm]

That's not a nice thing to imply.  Is there a particular one you think I've skipped?

It was a sincere question.  I have seen a number of collections of biographical and autobiographical material of plural wives being released over the past couple of decades, just curious as to how much you have read given that you have obviously read a lot of church history material.

 

But the "pretty much all of them" does seem to me to be an overstatement given the likelihood that most of the women involved probably don't have available records to be examined.

[JLHPROF]

But the "pretty much all of them" does seem to me to be an overstatement given the likelihood that most of the women involved probably don't have available records to be examined.

 

Probably.  I have admitted numerous times on this board that I am prone to hyperbole.  If I say all I usually mean a large majority.  If I say pretty much all, I usually mean all the major ones.  If I say most I probably mean 50%.  We don't need another poll to see how many people own a copy of The Seer.

 

I apologize if this personality trait rubs people here the wrong way.  I will try to work on it.

[Calm]

I forget sometimes all personal details people relate on the board so need reminding from time to time (i think I am pretty good overall though).  Plus I just like to have an accurate view of how much someone has studied a subject when they are posting their opinion…so that is why you probably get asked by me to clarify such things on occasion.

[Tacenda]

This could be checked out. Did anybody think to poll the "Sister Wives" group for their opinion?

I know for a fact that they believe it is a requirement to live polygamy. I've watched nearly all the episodes, they struggle alot with the lifestyle. But they believe in it and make the best of it. Good family, IMO!!

[KevinG]

I've said this on other threads, but I'm not comfortable judging Anraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young, and their contemporaries based on 20th century sensitivities and inspiration.

Can you imagine seeing them face to face and telling them, "Love the Gospel but you really screwed up on that whole polygamy thing!" Not my idea of good judgement at the Judgement bar.