Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting, thats an interpretation I'd never seen before, the possibility that he was a polygamist.  Of course, there isn't anything specifically stating that his 22 kids are due to polygamy, its possible to have that many kids by one wife, or for the first wife to die and a person could have more kids with a second wife. 

 

Except the scripture also specifies he had families (plural) while his brother only had a family (single).
22 kids AND families.  If that's not a reference to polygamy I'd be very surprised.

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Um...no.

There is obvious disparity in policy between genders but even if women were given the same ability to be sealed to multiple spouses, I don't see how the ghost of polygamy ever fades. It solves one of the multitudinous problems, but the overarching damage the system of multiple partnership creates would persist. Spouses could never truly be intimate or have complete trust in the fidelity of their partner.

Polygamy, polyandry, polyamory- whatever version you want to ascribe to, destroys what should be the closest, most special relationship a person has

 

I have a very strong bias and belief that relationships with fewer partners involved are going to be stronger in aggregate. Multiple parent relationships can also lead to more complex family patterns that aren't health. But this language seems extreme. It doesn't have to "Destroy" the "closest, most special relationship a person has" but may rearrange priorities and family dynamics.

For example: this polygamous family seems very health and happy. I wouldn't say the relationship between the 2 wives and their husband was destroyed but that the dynamics expanded and changed with the addition.

 

WIth luv,
BD

[BlueDreams]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except the scripture also specifies he had families (plural) while his brother only had a family (single).
22 kids AND families.  If that's not a reference to polygamy I'd be very surprised.

...OR it could be a reference to the fact that with 22 kids, the oldest ones are likely married already and have children/families of their own. There could be a large age gap between jared and his Brother where the bro has more older children that are married than the younger. That happens a lot in large families. This could explain the plurality of families without asserting that polygamy was somehow involved. Heck, depending on the culture, they may not distinguish strongly between in-laws and biological children and 22 may be 11 bio-children and their spouses.

WIth luv,

BD

[VideoGameJunkie]

Tacenda, the book just arrived today so now I will immerse myself in 200 pages of interesting book.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I have a very strong bias and belief that relationships with fewer partners involved are going to be stronger in aggregate. Multiple parent relationships can also lead to more complex family patterns that aren't health. But this language seems extreme. It doesn't have to "Destroy" the "closest, most special relationship a person has" but may rearrange priorities and family dynamics.

For example: this polygamous family seems very health and happy. I wouldn't say the relationship between the 2 wives and their husband was destroyed but that the dynamics expanded and changed with the addition.

 

WIth luv,
BD

We can certainly disagree about that. In fact, this is the premise of the new book by Carol Lynn Pearson, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. While there may be rare situations where it seems to work well for people, on the whole I think the attempt to have multiple partners destroys trust, creates jealousy, and rarely results in the satisfaction of all partners.

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except the scripture also specifies he had families (plural) while his brother only had a family (single).
22 kids AND families.  If that's not a reference to polygamy I'd be very surprised.

Its a confusing verse, there are statements that sound redundant.  I just read the 1830 copy and some adjacent passage wording is even more confusing.  I think its possible that "thy families" is just a reference to his extended family, and not to multiple wives.  

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the comments section in the RNS article:

And from Sis. Pearson's FB page:

So, yeah.  An online poll.  Participants were self-selected.  No controls.  Self-selection bias.  Big time.  And yet Sis. Pearson is treating the results of this poll as substantive and meaningful.

Meanwhile, however, there seems to be some pushback to the narrative Sis. Pearson is presenting, as evidenced from the comments on her FB post about the poll:

• You know what.... THIS is nothing to waste your emotional energy on in the life time. Know that God loves you and knows you, He is just, He is good, and He is fair. These things will all work out in the end, because THAT is the God I believe in. So relax! Live your life to its fullest. Be a good person, do your best and God will take care of the rest. "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy path."
• I struggled with this doctrine but at the same time had a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the Restoration. I couldn't equate those two facts with Joseph being a "fallen prophet". So, as we should do whenever we question a troubling point of doctrine, I took it to the Lord. It took some faith and fasting and prayer, but I received the spiritual witness that despite my "mortal lenses" that this doctrine is a true one and it is anything but demeaning and derogatory to women. Quite the contrary. I will take flack for saying so, but it doesn't matter because I know what I now know.  I had a profound experience in the temple that laid out this doctrine before me and helped me to understand. God's ways are not our ways, and for some doctrines to make any sense, you MUST take away the mortal/temporal way of viewing things. I cannot explain in words the understanding I now have, but I will express just a couple of thoughts that will hopefully get people out of their myopic view of this subject...
• Polygamy doesn't seem like punishment to me. You are not forced to live any of God's laws. You can choose to or not. I know for myself that I will choose polygamy because nothing will be taken away from me! I will only be added upon in the next life! I can't imagine the joy I will feel as many daughters of our Heavenly Father will be sealed to my husband so they can receive their exaltation!

Thanks

Quote

 

And lest I be accused (again) of "mansplaining" anything, the above quotes are from women.

BTW, usage of such a derogatory and inherently sexist term - derogatory against men and to our faces -  comes across as something along the lines of "Shut up.  You are a man, and therefore are not allowed to have a voice in this discussion.  Contributions to this topic only have value if they come from women."  Ironic, no?

Here are a few thoughts and observations on the term:

Use of the term “Mansplaining” is pejorative, and you should be ashamed for using it 

Allow me to explain why we don't need words like 'mansplain'

Why You’ll Never Hear Me Use the Term “Mansplain” (some language):

Arguments should not be silenced because of their author’s race or sex 

I wish we could jettison the Gender Wars from the Restored Gospel, or at least the tactics and rhetoric of those wars, which have aptly been described as "{having} almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes."  It's just not a good fit.  We are supposed to be seeking unity.  "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."  On this board we are trying to discuss and sort out complex and challenging issues facing the Saints.  I think we all have voices that can and should be expressed without being slurred because a voice happens to be male (or female, for that matter).

So for all you women who read my remarks and evaluate them on their merits rather than on my gender, I really appreciate that.  I try hard to do the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No offense Smac.....but shouldn't someone mention the term or accuse you on this thread of it before you try and argue it down? This feels a little more strawmansplaining to me

That stated I generally take the words of whoever is most effected by plural marriages (or any specialty group) over others period. Whether that be posthumous, living, multiple men or multiple women with the opposite gender. I don't have a major fight in that as I'm currently single and I tend to date older and am in great health (so my partner is likely to die before me if/whenever I marry). Plus my complex family situation entails families where there is no way, in LDS doctrine, that I can be sealed to all of my parents and siblings directly.  There would also be no way that they would want that, so I'm not super torn up about it. The closest that directly effect it is my grandmother...let's just say we're very happy that their was a previous short-lived husband that most of the family is sealed to (2nd grandpa we all knew sucked)....though I'm not sealed to that side yet. Though, i guess technically she may not have married the widower if she hadn't been dissuaded by a bishop to marry an unsealed man. 

 Plus I feel I have my own personal answers to navigate that in the here and now. So I would put less weight in my own opinion than, say, the friend who was struggling with her choice to cancel a sealing or the woman I met who was the second wife or the family I  mentioned above to happyjackwagon. I wouldn't shut up, but I would definitely take a less knowledgeable and opinion-oriented stance in order to learn from those who experience and see it most first hand.  And I would be concerned if our policies are leaving big gaps that are unnecessary or harmful. And I think there's legitimate reasons to believe that there are.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 21, 2016 by BlueDreams

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We can certainly disagree about that. In fact, this is the premise of the new book by Carol Lynn Pearson, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. While there may be rare situations where it seems to work well for people, on the whole I think the attempt to have multiple partners destroys trust, creates jealousy, and rarely results in the satisfaction of all partners.

Isn't that one of the points of polygamy?  That's what Brigham et al taught - that it teaches you to overcome jealousy, build a wider circle of trust, and requires increased faith.

Where did we get the idea that the happiest, coziest, easiest route is the right one?

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Isn't that one of the points of polygamy?  That's what Brigham et al taught - that it teaches you to overcome jealousy, build a wider circle of trust, and requires increased faith.

Where did we get the idea that the happiest, coziest, easiest route is the right one?

Of course he could have been explaining that jealousy is a trial to overcome because it is so prevalent in polygamy. Providing a challenge to be overcome is necessarily a virtue in and of itself.

I could tell someone that it is good to be humble and that it's easier for the poor to be humble. Then I rob him of his $$$. If I was right that humility was easier for the poor, then did I just do this person a service?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If his recollection contradicts the recollections of someone who was there, it is not as credible.  If he is relating something he himself saw or his secondhand report is confirmed by firsthand reports, then his recollections would be more credible.  In this case, it is the first.

I read the DNews article, as well as a FAIR article and part of a book by Marvin S. Hill.  I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on this discrepancy.  In the FAIR article, they state:

Quote

Hiram Page, one of the participants, stated he for the first time understood how some revelations given to people were not necessarily for their direct benefit

 

Hiram Page, who was one of the individuals sent to Canada, laid out the event in a letter in 1848.^[2] Page wrote that the revelation Joseph Smith received conditioned success upon whether those individuals in Canada capable of buying the Book of Mormon copyright would have their hearts softened. When unable to sell the copyright, the four men returned to Palmyra. Hiram Page stated he for the first time understood how some revelations given to people were not necessarily for their direct benefit—in fact, Hiram Page believed that the revelation was actually fulfilled

 

Hiram believed the revelation was fulfilled.  But this contradicts Marvin S. Hill's book - Quest for Refuge - where he says the following:

 

Quote

The economic situation of the Smith families was so desperate at this time that Joseph tried to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page wrote with bitterness years later that the prophet heard he could sell the copyright of any useful book in Canada and that he then received a revelation that “this would be a good opportunity to get a handsome sum.” Page explained that once expenses were met the profits were to be “for the exclusive benefit of the Smith family and was to be at the disposal of Joseph.” Page indicated that they hoped to get $8,000 for the copyright and that they traveled to Canada covertly to prevent Martin Harris from sharing in the dividend. Smith evidently believed that Harris was well enough off while his own family was destitute. When Page, Cowdery, and Knight arrived at Kingston, Ontario, they found no buyer. Page concluded that some revelations were not beneficial.⁹Martin Harris apparently learned of what was done, and Joseph guaranteed him in writing that he would share in any profits made from the subsequent sales of the book.¹⁰ In the spring of 1830 Harris walked the streets of Palmyra, trying to sell as many copies of the new scripture as he could. Shortly after Joseph Smith and Jesse Knight saw him in the road with books in his hand, he told them “the books will not sell for nobody wants them.

 

I would love to read the actual letter from Hiram, because these two accounts are contradictory and I'd like to read what he said for myself.  

One possibility in my mind is that the David Whitmer is giving an accurate recollection, that the party that went to Canada, and after returning unsuccessful in selling the copyright, that they asked Joseph for a revelation about why.  Its also possible that the revelation contained conditions on faithfulness at the same time as that story being possible in my mind.

One other question, the JSPP site dates that revelation to early 1830.  But they date the revelations book 1 as likely recording revelations from 1831 - 1835.  So I question the reason for the early 1830 dating of that revelation, why would it be different from the rest of the book?  Its possible in my mind that if this is not the original copy of this revelation.  Its also possible that this revelation, if recorded after the publication of the BoM, that it contains some revisionist history in it.  We have examples of this with other revelations.  I would be interested in your thoughts on these things.  Thanks

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by hope_for_things

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course he could have been explaining that jealousy is a trial to overcome because it is so prevalent in polygamy. Providing a challenge to be overcome is necessarily a virtue in and of itself.

I could tell someone that it is good to be humble and that it's easier for the poor to be humble. Then I rob him of his $$$. If I was right that humility was easier for the poor, then did I just do this person a service?

For me it all goes back to the sixth lecture on faith:

• Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

Whenever the argument I hear is "that's too great a sacrifice - God wouldn't ask that of us" that's an instant red flag for me.
According to the teachings of the prophets polygamy is a higher law because it requires a greater sacrifice of self.  It's Elder Holland and the marigold pickers all over again.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Isn't that one of the points of polygamy?  That's what Brigham et al taught - that it teaches you to overcome jealousy, build a wider circle of trust, and requires increased faith.
 

And who is this "you?" For heaven's sake, it was the women who were supposed to overcome their natural feelings. It was the women who were given advice to not love their husbands to endure polygamy, it was the women who were told it was a way to break the curse of Eve by overcoming any desire or natural affection toward their husbands.

I suspect VGJ represents the true feelings of a surprising number of men.  I don't for one minute think that the males who demand a polygamist heaven aren't thinking about other women. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

The book I'm reading that Tacenda suggested is actually good. The people that posted their personal stories and worries is powerful.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Tacenda, the book just arrived today so now I will immerse myself in 200 pages of interesting book.

Woo hoo, can't believe you haven't burned it yet.

[Sky]

All I can say is that I hope all you men looking forward to polygamy in the hereafter have a great time!  I probably won't be there to join you.  

And ya know, I've sacrificed A LOT for this church.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

19 minutes ago, Sky said:

All I can say is that I hope all you men looking forward to polygamy in the hereafter have a great time!  I probably won't be there to join you.  

And ya know, I've sacrificed A LOT for this church.  

What do you mean by that comment?

[Sky]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

What do you mean by that comment?

I think it would be better to not discuss it.  It would veer off topic, anyway.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

The book bashes Joseph Smith as a prophet. Shouldn't Carol Lynn pearson lose her temple recommend for speaking ill of the Lord's anointed.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I don't for one minute think that the males who demand a polygamist heaven aren't thinking about other women. 

I don't think for one minute that anyone who refuses to even consider that a polygamist heaven may be the reality is thinking about correct principle or becoming like God.

Too hung up on their own doubts and fears.  With or without polygamy, heaven is equally perfect.

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, Sky said:

The "true believers" being the ones that support the practice, and the "quasi-believers" being the ones that reject it?  So the test of a true saint is contingent on our acceptance of polygamy?  If so, mighty strange for a church that currently excommunicates people for practicing polygamy!  Unless your position is that it is coming back during the millennium - which seems dubious at best.  

 

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Maybe it's the other way around. If you reject polygamy you've passed the test. 

The true believers are the ones willing to submit to the will of God, no matter which way it goes. Thy will be done is the crucial part. You have to have faith that Heavenly Father would not hurt you,  that He loves you and wants what is best for you.

[rodheadlee]

On 7/21/2016 at 3:03 AM, sunstoned said:

All of the material above is from D&C 132.   Without this section there is no real justification of polygamy.  D&C 132 was written by JS, who at the time this section was made public had been practicing polygamy for some time in secret.  This section could be seen as justification of his actions.  Also, D&C 132 lays out in some detail the way polygamy should be practiced, none of which JS followed.  Given the questionable circumstances of its introduction and way JS disregarded section 132 in his practice, it seems the church could be justified in abandoning this hurtful and destructive teaching.  There is precedence for such action with the BY/priesthood restriction essay.  

Given the problems it as caused, maybe polygamy should be added to Bushman's list of the LDS narratives that should be changed.  What would the fallout of such action be?  IMO it would be a net positive.  

 

If you reject D&C 132 then you must reject every sealing ever done. What would the fallout be from that?

Edited July 22, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

If polygamy is THE test for sifting, I wonder why current and recent Prophets haven't spoken of this and taught this?  It would be very important for members to be aware of, if it truly was the test.

I will tell you why.   Because the current LDS leaders truly dislike the stain that LDS 19th century polygamy is on the church.  I suspect they wish it had never happened.  So they really say nothing about it ever.  The last LDS church president I recall saying much about it was President Hinckley and he said in a Larry King interview that it was  or doctrinal and we have nothing to do with it.   

The idea that polygamy is a currently a sifting is nonesense and those who claim it is have simply opinion to back it up.

if polygamy becomes legal in the USA I highly doubt the LDS church would institute the practice at least for mortality.  

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Then why aren't you an atheist? I don't mean to be disrespectful but every religion on earth has had some form of polygamy. Ours just applies to the next life.

CFR that every religion on the earth has some form of polygamy.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm 64 pages into the book and Carol Lynn pearson is making me think more and more that polygamy is a true doctrine of God. That's the opposite reaction she wants but that's what her book is doing to me.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I will tell you why.   Because the current LDS leaders truly dislike the stain that LDS 19th century polygamy is on the church.  I suspect they wish it had never happened.  So they really say nothing about it ever.  The last LDS church president I recall saying much about it was President Hinckley and he said in a Larry King interview that it was  or doctrinal and we have nothing to do with it.  

For once I agree with you.  But I think it is an issue of image and being tired of the PR it requires, not a disapproval of the practice itself.

Quote

if polygamy becomes legal in the USA I highly doubt the LDS church would institute the practice at least for mortality.  

Agreed again.