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

[JLHPROF]

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!!

 

Well there's always this book - one of the three women authors are part of the Brown's group I think.  And it's the only contemporary work on the subject that I know of.  There's an anonymous survey in the back of 95 polygamous wives.

If we want to know what polygamous women think this is probably better than making assumptions based on snippets of 150 year old recollections viewed through modern eyes.

[Uncle Dale]

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

 

 

How might it change such comfort (or discomfort) if Presidents Smith and Young were

left on another page, not attached to the first three named historical figures?

 

That is to say, if those patriarchs were not persons who actually lived and acted

as the antique narratives portray -- or, if the professions of Smith and Young do

not legitimately derive from those ancient patriarchs?

 

Can the actions of Smith and Young be justified, simply upon their own merits,

without our linking them to pre-Israelites who may or may not have existed?

 

There are numerous old editorials in the 1870s Deseret News, Salt Lake Telegraph

and Salt Lake Herald which attempt to do just that -- which barely mention any

sort of biblical precedent, and simply promote polygamy upon its own, supposed

merits. From perusing these old editorials I get the feeling that they were largely

intended for a Gentile audience (or at least with the knowledge that legislators

back in Washington D. C. were metaphorically looking over the editors' shoulders).

 

If Smith and Young are NOT justified by biblical precedent (because of historical

reality, or because we merely wish to examine that possibility), what then?

 

UD

Edited January 31, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

My question was meant as rhetorical. I can't even imagine having such a conversation with my wife. I'm assuming it would get the same reception as me telling her I had been unfaithful and had started looking at other women with lust.

I can hear the whoosh! and slam as the door closes on her way out.

[LOSTONE]

Nothing compares to learning you have cancer. I know cause I have been there myself and had family members who have also been there with cancer. Just saying what I know.

[Calm]

A lot of people have cancer scares (I've been through it several times, including a potential brain tumour...my uncle died from one which made the probability much higher in my mind at least) so perhaps this has led many to believe they know how it feels to learn it is a reality....and then there is the wide range of cancers, my grandmothers and my mom had skin cancer as have many friends and relative...but knowing at sometime I am likely going to have some skin cells removed is hugely different from believing I am so likely to get breast cancer I get them removed proactively (when I was in the hospital getting a gross....why I let my doctors describe the things they take out of me, i just don't know....but gratefully benign growth removed, my roommate was there because her mother and aunts had died of breast cancer and one of her sisters had been diagnosed) and vastly different than learning I actually have something that can kill me unless extreme measures are taken...and maybe even then.

In one way, that might make cancer an appropriate analogy given that people are hit with shock at a variety of levels, but I think when talking about shock with cancer, most everyone goes to the worst possible case, which from what I've seen is quite different both in quality and 'quantity' to even extreme faith crises.

[LOSTONE]

A lot of people have cancer scares (I've been through it several times, including a potential brain tumour...my uncle died from one which made the probability much higher in my mind at least) so perhaps this has led many to believe they know how it feels to learn it is a reality....and then there is the wide range of cancers, my grandmothers and my mom had skin cancer as have many friends and relative...but knowing at sometime I am likely going to have some skin cells removed is hugely different from believing I am so likely to get breast cancer I get them removed proactively (when I was in the hospital getting a gross....why I let my doctors describe the things they take out of me, i just don't know....but gratefully benign growth removed, my roommate was there because her mother and aunts had died of breast cancer and one of her sisters had been diagnosed) and vastly different than learning I actually have something that can kill me unless extreme measures are taken...and maybe even then.

In one way, that might make cancer an appropriate analogy given that people are hit with shock at a variety of levels, but I think when talking about shock with cancer, most everyone goes to the worst possible case, which from what I've seen is quite different both in quality and 'quantity' to even extreme faith crises.

 

I understand and respect your point of view on the cancer analogy. Because of my personal experiences with cancer including watch love ones suffer and die from cancer, I am very selective on using cancer as an analogy. To each their own with all respects.

[Calm]

I was agreeing it shouldn't be used in this case in case I wasn't clear, too many go to the extreme cases in their mind and like I said, having seen both extreme faith crises and extreme cancer cases, the former in no way measure up to the latter in any way close enough IMO to justify using the latter as an analogy.

[Tacenda]

I was agreeing it shouldn't be used in this case in case I wasn't clear, too many go to the extreme cases in their mind and like I said, having seen both extreme faith crises and extreme cancer cases, the former in no way measure up to the latter in any way close enough IMO to justify using the latter as an analogy.

I think it can be worse for a few people, there I said it, come hunt me down and shoot me. Because that's what I've said needs to happen. It may be because I've chosen to stay in and be silent that I'm struggling so much. Maybe if I'd just cut myself from all things Mormon I could find a whole new set of friends. But as it stands I'm the loneliest I've ever been. It's a sick thought and I'm so sorry to have even said it, but it's true for me. I seriously wish sometimes I'd get a disease and leave this earth because I'm hurting family, namely my husband. He's trying to act like the church isn't that important but sometimes I see how I've hurt him. I keep thinking how much better he'd be if he found another wife, but that can't happen unless I'm dead or I divorce him. Which would be the more devastating to him? I listened to an old podcast with Scott Gordon and John Dehlin where they discuss these issues at the UVU campus. John brings up that it's harder on people to stay and be silent then those that leave it and are open, he had statistics. Well that explains my situation to a tee. So I wonder if the church would like me to leave, but they don't dare say it.

I think that in the case of people getting the dam! cancer it is horrible, but they usually have the love of family and friends even more than ever! But in my case of being a doubter and possibly looking like a dissenter, the love is not there, in fact it's like someone with a scarlet "A" on their clothing. I'm a disease, and a carrier of the doubt germ, ask Pres. Packer! So this is why I feel it can be so devastating too. Feeling unloved and feeling like you are a wack job. That's how I feel, but I sure put on an act sometimes, and maybe I was already this way before my FC in some areas but at least I had that comrade feeling. Now I'm stuck in between two worlds and it's devastating, boo hoo right. But I place a lot of blame on the church for hiding history, square on them!

ETA: Ran out of posts, that's a good thing. Cal, I'm ashamed after reading the below.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Tacenda

[Calm]

" I seriously wish sometimes I'd get a disease and leave this earth because I'm hurting family, namely my husband"

Are you saying you would choose to have a disease where you are in constant pain and suffering that is comparable in many ways to slow torture and are not able to live a normal life at all, confined to a bed or wheelchair, have your insides burned out and ulcerated so you can hardly eat or drink due to your efforts to be healed, potentially have long lasting or permanent physical damage including brain? Having to breath through a tube in one's neck and barely being able to speak? Having part of your face gone? Go blind and insane because your brain is being eaten up (as happened to my uncle)? And after weeks or months of fighting it, your body destroys itself with an unbearable amount of pain that may not even be controlled by pain meds because of tolerance built up or another complication.

Sorry if this comes across like badgering but I want to make sure we are talking about the same sort of thing with the word "extreme".

Edited February 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

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!!

 

Don't we all have things in our lives that we "struggle a lot" with and make the best of?  So for some it is polygamy for others something else.  What relevance does historic polygamy have to do with current Church practices.

[Calm]

I added a PS before I read your addition, Tac. Don't be ashamed, people who have not had to deal with cancer often just have a blurry notion of what it is like. Certainly the medical shows don't show it except usually to make people look gaunt but attractive with scarves and such so the storyline grabs people. No one wants to see people throwing up, they don't want to look at sores, deal with the fear of dementia, permenant pain, lack of adequate treatment, etc.

Just try to be realistic and keep educating yourself. You have about people having problems with the Church. Just keep doing it when anything ends up being hotly debated.

Assuming we know enough is when we get into trouble.

There might be someone out there who would rather go through the above rather than deal with their loss of faith. I have a niece who was told by her father he'd rather her now husband had raped her rather than baptise her. Extreme reactions to faith are out there....but this level of faith crisis reaction is likely to be very rare and unfortunately what happens IMO is it decreases understanding for what goes on for either situation to compare them in this way.

I don't know if I "get" your desire at times to 'unburden' your family by getting sick and dying. Your struggle is not mine. Getting sick makes it so no one has to blame anyone else, no one did anything wrong...you just die and life goes on for others. So perhaps that is why you see it at times as a desirable solution. Given my own health issues, I have p at times wish God would throw a switch and turn me off (no way do i want it to go the route of suffering more though)....but I have enough training in psychology that I know the death of a spouse or mother could never make life easier, just different at best. So my wishes for the pain to go away are purely selfish, I know.

I should probably use the word selfcentered rather than selfish as I don't see the desire for pain to go away by dying as a sin or wrong or even weak. It is what we do with those thoughts that may be either constructive or self destructive.

Edited February 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

How might it change such comfort (or discomfort) if Presidents Smith and Young were

left on another page, not attached to the first three named historical figures?

That is to say, if those patriarchs were not persons who actually lived and acted

as the antique narratives portray -- or, if the professions of Smith and Young do

not legitimately derive from those ancient patriarchs?

Can the actions of Smith and Young be justified, simply upon their own merits,

without our linking them to pre-Israelites who may or may not have existed?

There are numerous old editorials in the 1870s Deseret News, Salt Lake Telegraph

and Salt Lake Herald which attempt to do just that -- which barely mention any

sort of biblical precedent, and simply promote polygamy upon its own, supposed

merits. From perusing these old editorials I get the feeling that they were largely

intended for a Gentile audience (or at least with the knowledge that legislators

back in Washington D. C. were metaphorically looking over the editors' shoulders).

If Smith and Young are NOT justified by biblical precedent (because of historical

reality, or because we merely wish to examine that possibility), what then?

UD

Since I beleive ancient and modern prophets were all directed by God to take multiple wives, I don't separate the two. In both cases I beleive it was done to build dynastic relationships in their dispensations. Precedence had nothing to do with justifying anything. Edited February 1, 2015 by KevinG

[bcuzbcuz]

Since I beleive ancient and modern prophets were all directed by God to take multiple wives, I don't separate the two. In both cases I beleive it was done to build dynastic relationships in their dispensations. Precedence had nothing to do with justifying anything.

Are you married? Don't feel obliged to answer, it's a rhetorical question. If the prophet and the church re-instated polygamy and polyandry once again, would you strive to be worthy of being permitted to have other wives? And if the church authorities said you were worthy to take additional wives, would you do so, regardless of all other factors?

What if your first wife said no, no way? Would you take additional wives. anyway? To a person who sets the church foremost over everything else, the answer is clear. What the church says is to be done, is to be done. Would you marry other women in secrecy, like Joseph did? Would you lie to your wife about taking additional wives, like Joseph did?

[Uncle Dale]

Since I beleive ancient and modern prophets were all directed by God to take multiple wives, I don't separate the two. In both cases I beleive it was done to build dynastic relationships in their dispensations. Precedence had nothing to do with justifying anything.

 

Of course you are fully entitled to your opinions -- and especially

so in a matter which you have probably already pondered deeply.

 

But, suppose you were inclined to make a deeper study, and

apply at some noted university, and delve into Palestinian

history, languages, ethnicities, archaeology and such. There

are situations today in which that is possible -- where the

teachers are acknowledged experts in their fields, some of whom

have contributed significantly in their professional disciplines.

 

Suppose you were to spend a few years with a couple dozen

of instructors and mentors at that level of scholarship.

 

What percentage of them do you guess would present

Abraham and his reported progeny as established historical

figures? What percentage of those experts would portray

the patriarchs as literary composites, or as personages of

tradition and legend?

 

Whether or not you personally have concluded Abraham was a man

who actually lived and whose name thus ended up in ancient writings,

it must be conceded that there are numerous ANE historians whose

knowledge and intelligence exceed our own, but who teach otherwise.

 

How would you (or some person you identify with in terms of belief)

converse with and exchange knowledge about the possible value of

ancient Israelite polygamy, those learned professors?

 

After all, If Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, etc. truly practiced an exalted

lifestyle in ancient Israel, there should be some means by which we

today can examine, discuss and weigh its supposed merits and benefits?

 

Don't you agree?

 

UD

Edited February 1, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[bcuzbcuz]

I think it can be worse for a few people, there I said it, come hunt me down and shoot me. Because that's what I've said needs to happen. It may be because I've chosen to stay in and be silent that I'm struggling so much. Maybe if I'd just cut myself from all things Mormon I could find a whole new set of friends. But as it stands I'm the loneliest I've ever been. It's a sick thought and I'm so sorry to have even said it, but it's true for me. I seriously wish sometimes I'd get a disease and leave this earth because I'm hurting family, namely my husband. He's trying to act like the church isn't that important but sometimes I see how I've hurt him. I keep thinking how much better he'd be if he found another wife, but that can't happen unless I'm dead or I divorce him. Which would be the more devastating to him? I listened to an old podcast with Scott Gordon and John Dehlin where they discuss these issues at the UVU campus. John brings up that it's harder on people to stay and be silent then those that leave it and are open, he had statistics. Well that explains my situation to a tee. So I wonder if the church would like me to leave, but they don't dare say it.

I think that in the case of people getting the dam! cancer it is horrible, but they usually have the love of family and friends even more than ever! But in my case of being a doubter and possibly looking like a dissenter, the love is not there, in fact it's like someone with a scarlet "A" on their clothing. I'm a disease, and a carrier of the doubt germ, ask Pres. Packer! So this is why I feel it can be so devastating too. Feeling unloved and feeling like you are a wack job. That's how I feel, but I sure put on an act sometimes, and maybe I was already this way before my FC in some areas but at least I had that comrade feeling. Now I'm stuck in between two worlds and it's devastating, boo hoo right. But I place a lot of blame on the church for hiding history, square on them!

ETA: Ran out of posts, that's a good thing. Cal, I'm ashamed after reading the below.

I recognize your words. I even recognize the emotions you state. My first wife died suddenly, 22 years ago. My second oldest son took his life 13 years later. I have fought depressions that swell over me like breaking waves, again and again throughout this time. I get emotionally dragged under, often , like fighting against drowning and the struggle to push up to the water's surface, to grasp for breath keeps me awake at night (like now. It's 3 in the morning)

I've gone through a myriad of counselling sessions. I've also been tumble dried and stretched and bent out of shape with handfuls of daily medicines, the cure worse than the injury.

Only one thing works; cognitive behavioral therapy. It may be called something else where you live, I'm just translating. The idea is to concieve of actual physical things, goals, that the patient, not the doctor, sets. They must be actually achievable. No wishy washy."I promise to be good" kind of junk.

I had a number of issues on my plate. One was church oriented. I set the goals. Even set dates and set measurement factors to know I had actually met the goal. One goal took two years---but I did it. The feeling of success is enormous.

I recommend this method because it worked for me. You talk about wishing you were sick. You talk about leaving our husband. The first one sucks. First it's a negative and you can't measure effectiveness nor even if you are causal. The second one may be a goal, but it would need a whole collection of sub-factors and steps to reach the final goal. Besides you state it, not as a goal for you but as a gift to someone else. I don't think it really fits the mark.

You mention leaving the church. That could be a goal. Or you may want the exact opposite, staying in the church. But you would need to define factors that help and guide along the way and goals that are measurable and definite.

Good luck

[JLHPROF]

What if your first wife said no, no way? Would you take additional wives. anyway? To a person who sets the church foremost over everything else, the answer is clear. What the church says is to be done, is to be done. Would you marry other women in secrecy, like Joseph did? Would you lie to your wife about taking additional wives, like Joseph did?

 

I find this complaint tiresome.  We can debate when Emma became aware of plural marriage (as a revelation) but we'll never know.

If Joseph took his first plural wives without even discussing it with Emma, then I would consider that a violation of correct order.

 

However, once Emma completely refused to allow Joseph to follow a commandment of God, then Joseph did exactly right by placing God's commandment over his wife's objections.  I doubt we'll ever know exactly what order things went down (it's none of our business after all - I doubt it will be revealed even in the next life.  It's private).  Did Joseph attempt to take his first wives without discussing the practice with Emma?  If he did I am sure he will answer for that.

Did Joseph stop asking Emma's permission AFTER she had completely rejected the principle?  Probably and there was no fault in keeping God's commands despite her.

Was Emma considered to be his first wife in the eyes of God since other women were sealed to him for eternity first?  If she wasn't yet considered his wife in the gospel, did he need her permission?

 

If God commands and your spouse objects it doesn't matter if it's plural marriage, tithing, serving a mission, taking a calling, or ANYTHING that God has commanded.  God's command overrides spousal complaints in anything.  And it's about time we stopped giving Joseph crap for that.

Edited February 1, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

Thank you, thank you (you hopefully know who you all are)...I really appreciate the advice and will take my time with each line from your posts, and read between the lines too.

I've recently been to a counselor but she was much too young, but won't give up and figure something out.

USU78, please forgive me for reacting the way I did, not that your words were directed to me, just to the thread topic. Some people are given much more to handle and some are given less. And I'm definitely in the latter.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Tacenda

[Calm]

It is important to find a counselor you are comfortable with. I wouldn't want a really young one myself who may have talked to others about it, but really didn't have the experience of living through at least four decades and knowing how the additional years/weight make a difference.

[bcuzbcuz]

I find this complaint tiresome.  We can debate when Emma became aware of plural marriage (as a revelation) but we'll never know.

If Joseph took his first plural wives without even discussing it with Emma, then I would consider that a violation of correct order.

 

However, once Emma completely refused to allow Joseph to follow a commandment of God, then Joseph did exactly right by placing God's commandment over his wife's objections.  I doubt we'll ever know exactly what order things went down (it's none of our business after all - I doubt it will be revealed even in the next life.  It's private).  Did Joseph attempt to take his first wives without discussing the practice with Emma?  If he did I am sure he will answer for that.

Did Joseph stop asking Emma's permission AFTER she had completely rejected the principle?  Probably and there was no fault in keeping God's commands despite her.

Was Emma considered to be his first wife in the eyes of God since other women were sealed to him for eternity first?  If she wasn't yet considered his wife in the gospel, did he need her permission?

 

If God commands and your spouse objects it doesn't matter if it's plural marriage, tithing, serving a mission, taking a calling, or ANYTHING that God has commanded.  God's command overrides spousal complaints in anything.  And it's about time we stopped giving Joseph crap for that.

Are you serious? I'm wondering what phrases were spoken when Joseph married Emma. Was there some clausul that promised love, truth and devotion, "except in the following cases!"

Would you turn your back on your wife if she didn't go along with multiple wives in your household?

I know with absolute assuredness that nothing was spoken between my wife and I when we were married that would provide a creep hole, allowing me to take other wives.

"God's commands override spousal complaints in anything.?" Ha! Good luck with that. Ha!

[bcuzbcuz]

I find this complaint tiresome. We can debate when Emma became aware of plural marriage (as a revelation) but we'll never know.

If Joseph took his first plural wives without even discussing it with Emma, then I would consider that a violation of correct order.

However, once Emma completely refused to allow Joseph to follow a commandment of God, then Joseph did exactly right by placing God's commandment over his wife's objections. I doubt we'll ever know exactly what order things went down (it's none of our business after all - I doubt it will be revealed even in the next life. It's private). Did Joseph attempt to take his first wives without discussing the practice with Emma? If he did I am sure he will answer for that.

Did Joseph stop asking Emma's permission AFTER she had completely rejected the principle? Probably and there was no fault in keeping God's commands despite her.

Was Emma considered to be his first wife in the eyes of God?

Oops, my wife just told me to get off the internet and shovel the snow instead

Edited February 1, 2015 by bcuzbcuz

[JLHPROF]

I know with absolute assuredness that nothing was spoken between my wife and I when we were married that would provide a creep hole, allowing me to take other wives.

 

 

If you were sealed in the temple I would disagree...you might want to check on that.

If you were only married civily you are probably right.

[Tacenda]

If you were sealed in the temple I would disagree...you might want to check on that.

If you were only married civily you are probably right.

Refresh my memory a bit, or is that why we're to go often to understand the mysteries.

[JLHPROF]

Refresh my memory a bit, or is that why we're to go often to understand the mysteries.

 

Ok, so to be fair, it's doesn't specify polygamy.  But when we covenant with God that we will obey the rites and ordinances of marriage what exactly would they be?  I don't know of any ordinances and rites that are performed that are related to marriage specifically that occur after we are sealed.  Except two possibilities...the topic of this thread - polygamy, and the higher blessings which we have to wait to be offered so cannot place the covenant obligation on us .

 

We covenanted to keep and obey additional rites and ordinances beyond the sealing - what we are taught is the crowning ordinance.  Clearly there are more.

Edited February 1, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Uncle Dale]

...
Was Emma considered to be his first wife in the eyes of God?
...

That's an interesting question. Some observer living down along the
Susquehanna mentioned Joseph's alleged intimate relationship
with the daughters of Josiah Stowell. I think Stowell died a member;
but I'm not sure about his kids. Were those daughters eventually
sealed to Joseph?

Years ago an intelligent Mormon shared with me his opinion
that Eliza Snow-Smith had taken over Emma's role as first
wife and Elect Lady, after Emma had tried to murder Joseph.

Brigham Young professed in a public address that he had
witnesses right there in the audience who could confirm that
Emma had unsuccessfully attempted to poison her husband
during his last months at Nauvoo -- wouldn't such an act
have resulted in her losing her first wife's privileges (of not
consenting to some of those later plural marriages)?

UD Edited February 1, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[bcuzbcuz]

Ok, so to be fair, it's doesn't specify polygamy. But when we covenant with God that we will obey the rites and ordinances of marriage what exactly would they be? I don't know of any ordinances and rites that are performed that are related to marriage specifically that occur after we are sealed. Except two possibilities...the topic of this thread - polygamy, and the higher blessings which we have to wait to be offered so cannot place the covenant obligation on us .

We covenanted to keep and obey additional rites and ordinances beyond the sealing - what we are taught is the crowning ordinance. Clearly there are more.

I guess we hear what we want to hear. I certainly remember nothing from my temple sealing that can be construed to include the concept of polyandry or polygamy. I do remember the spirit of humility and devotion that both my wife and I felt that symbolized a union for life and eternity. But once again, if we´re looking for loopholes, we hear loopholes.

We went through in 1970. Much has changed since then. We had a long, 4 hour ceremony, with elderly actors that played all the parts in the ceremony. Maybe I need to look at the newer version with a more critical eye, and paying attention to alternate interpretations to what I thought was a rather straightforward message.

Edited February 1, 2015 by bcuzbcuz