The Calling of Polygamy, and disaster that always follows...

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Whatever else is or is not debatable about polygyny (high birthrates compared to monogamy, lower birthrates compared to monogamy, why God commanded it [if, indeed, he did so]) I find it revealing that its opponents completely fail to deal with the elephant in the room; the silence is deafening ("No, no, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't exist! Honest!  I simply think that polygyny is an abomination, that it could never have been commanded by God, that those who obeyed the purported command were dupes of Joseph" and so on and so forth). "It's not the effect [the existence of real-life, honest-to-goodness, flesh-and-blood human beings] that I have a problem with; it's just the cause [polygyny]."

But there is no effect without a cause.  Opponents of polygyny seem to want people to forget that and/or they want to have their cake and to eat it, too.  Again, the failure to connect those dots is telling, and the silence is deafening.

 

Yup. My parents' grandparents were the last legal practitioners. A couple of my aunts still have memories of those flesh and blood folks.

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think that just the existence of a people is sufficient. 

It is the covenant and promise and fulfillment of that covenant via polygamy more than the existence of a people that is evidence of God's approval to me.  Jacob, who later became Israel (another token of God's approval), fulfilled God's promise via 4 women. God told Jacob in a vision, on his way to marry Leah and Rachel, that "thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth...and in thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.  And behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places wither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of (Gen 28:13-15)". 

God clearly states that his future children and posterity are covenanted unto Jacob.  God later helped fulfill that covenant by opening the womb of Rachel (a sign of approval of Jacob's second marriage, and fulfillment of his covenant via his second wife), by which Joseph was born.  The covenant promises unto the lineage of Ephraim come through Joseph, by which part of God' promise was fulfilled in which he said "all the families of the earth shall be blessed".  Part of this promise is fulfilled through missionary work by the line of Ephraim.   

God "raised up seed" unto himself through Jacob's polygamist wives - a condition condoned in the Book of Mormon by another Jacob.  If Israel does not meet the qualification of "raising up seed" unto God through polygamy, I don't know what would.  I think it is blatantly clear that the Book of Mormon Jacob was pointing to the Biblical Jacob in that reference. His seed was raised up unto God and became the covenant people of God, filled the whole earth, and blessed all families of the earth, by way of polygamy. 

[Kenngo1969]

Yes, being called to live polygyny was a sacrifice, a passage through a true crucible for many of those so called. Since polygyny offends our enlightened 21st-century sensibilities, many of us simply assume (though we shouldn't forget that old saying about what assuming does), since being asked to practice it was such a sacrifice for those so called, that they simply breathed a sigh of relief and said, "Whew!  Glad that's over with!" when that command was rescinded.  Not so.  The differences between polygyny and monogamy notwithstanding, suppose any of my readers were asked to give up his spouse.  While, surely, there were cases of an inequity of affection between and among polygynous spouses, as difficult as it is for modern, enlightened monogamists to imagine, I daresay that most of the men who practiced it loved all of their spouses equally.  Imagine being asked to give up such a love.

Easy?  Only for someone who is determined seriously to underestimate the task.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Whatever else is or is not debatable about polygyny (high birthrates compared to monogamy, lower birthrates compared to monogamy, why God commanded it [if, indeed, he did so]) I find it revealing that its opponents completely fail to deal with the elephant in the room; the silence is deafening ("No, no, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't exist! Honest!  I simply think that polygyny is an abomination, that it could never have been commanded by God, that those who obeyed the purported command were dupes of Joseph" and so on and so forth). "It's not the effect [the existence of real-life, honest-to-goodness, flesh-and-blood human beings] that I have a problem with; it's just the cause [polygyny]."

But there is no effect without a cause.  Opponents of polygyny seem to want people to forget that and/or they want to have their cake and to eat it, too.  Again, the failure to connect those dots is telling, and the silence is deafening.

 

Can you be more specific to what "effect" you are talking about?   What effect is there from polygamy that can't happen from monogamy?  (Sincere question because you and others could have been born with or without polygamy being practiced).

Edited July 28, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

The only thing I can give polygamy as to being good for the church is that it was a refiner's fire. And only the most devoted stayed on. I feel for them though, the tradgedy that befell so many going across the plains. Yes I know, I know it helped their testimony of God, but what of those that stayed behind, it's not like they missed out much and weren't able to have testimonies of Christ also. But Utah is a wonderful state with majestic mountains no complaint there. Except when the pioneers came to it, it was awful according to some diaries I've read.  

In all honesty, I believe men in the bible and some men in the time of Joseph Smith were not very good with monogamy. And men in our day also that can't stay with one woman the entire time. I've read quotes from early LDS leaders, maybe just two of them, about longevity and looking younger while living polygamy. I take it that they feel that sex attributes to it. And I believe polygamy or whore houses would afford them that. Of course they wouldn't want to choose the whore house, so why not make polygamy work since it was in the bible and supposedly okay with God? 

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Can you be more specific to what "effect" you are talking about?   What effect is there from polygamy that can't happen from monogamy?  (Sincere question)

Can a people in monogamous relationships have children?  Provided there are no biological impediments, yes.  Did people in at least some polygynous relationships (the cause) have children (the effect)?  Provided there were no biological impediments, and provided they engaged in the procreative act, yes, they did.  If one is going to argue that polygyny was not instituted by God, that it was a product of Joseph's fertile (pardon the pun! ) mind, and so on, then, to me, that is the equivalent of arguing that the effect (the children) who resulted from polygynous relationships (the cause) ... such as, at least indirectly, Your Humble Correspondent ... do not deserve to exist.

I trust that it will not take you too much reflection to understand why I find such a view problematic.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I love you Papa...but no comment.

This is not an easy topic, no matter the approach, is it? 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Hyrum Smith certainly did.

You know Hyrum was indeed a man apart. The irony is that the "linage of our Faith" is his, not Joseph's. Joseph's words, but Hyrum linage. 

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The only thing I can give polygamy as to being good for the church is that it was a refiner's fire. ...

So ... you don't believe that the children who resulted from such relationships ... including, at least indirectly, Your Humble Correspondent ... deserve to exist?  Because, whether you recognize it or not and whether you want to admit it or not, that's where your logic leads.

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Can a people in monogamous relationships have children?  Provided there are no biological impediments, yes.  Did people in at least some polygynous relationships (the cause) have children (the effect)?  Provided there were no biological impediments, and provided they engaged in the procreative act, yes, they did.  If one is going to argue that polygyny was not instituted by God, that it was a product of Joseph's fertile (pardon the pun! ) mind, and so on, then, to me, that is the equivalent of arguing that the effect (the children) who resulted from polygynous relationships (the cause) ... such as, at least indirectly, Your Humble Correspondent ... do not deserve to exist.

I trust that it will not take you too much reflection to understand why I find such a view problematic.

No one would feel or is saying that you don't deserve to exist.  No reflection needed to know that.

However, you could exist without polygamy, IMO.  Or do you believe you wouldn't have been born or had the chance to come to earth unless it was through a polygamous relationship?  

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No one would feel or is saying that you don't deserve to exist.  No reflection needed to know that.

However, you could exist without polygamy, IMO.  Or do you believe you wouldn't have been born or had the chance to come to earth unless it was through a polygamous relationship?  

If it were not for polygyny, then everyone in the chain of my ancestors back to the polygynous relationship which begat that particular ancestor would not exist, ergo, I would not exist.  Sure, we can talk hypotheticals forever and ever, amen and amen, but I'm not talking about what could have happened, or about what (according to some/many  on this thread) should (or should not) have happened: I'm talking about what did happen.

[thesometimesaint]

41 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You know Hyrum was indeed a man apart. The irony is that the "linage of our Faith" is his, not Joseph's. Joseph's words, but Hyrum linage. 

Being an long time convert I think our spiritual linage belongs to Joseph, while our physical linage belongs to Hyrum.

Edited July 28, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[sjdawg]

On 7/27/2017 at 6:44 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Dang! Did I call it or what! I knew when I recommended that collection of letters to his sons that someone would point out there isn't a similar collection for his daughters. Thank you!  I'm sure he wrote to his daughters. Perhaps it is a book you should write. Seriously. 

Our current notion of correct parenting (quality time?) cannot be used to gauge parenting in the 19th-Century American frontier. 

 

I'm glad you are so proud of yourself but I think I asked a pretty valid question.  I don't believe the book included letters to all BY's son's either but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Also I have no doubt BY had good relationships with some of his children.  I remain unconvinced it was possible for him to maintain healthy relationships with all of them.

Edited July 29, 2017 by sjdawg

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So ... you don't believe that the children which resulted from such relationships ... including, at least indirectly, Your Humble Correspondent ... deserve to exist?  Because, whether you recognize it or not and whether you want to admit it or not, that's where your logic leads.

My ancestor was a polygamous too, all I remember is that the two wives couldn't stand one another and were very unmentionable when speaking about our ancestors. She was the woman who was given a pie that was found by her daughter on the trek to Salt Lake in the movie "17 Miracles".

Shocked that I was never told about her story, I had to hear from a friend of my mom's just a few years ago. I'm wondering if I need to try and find more in my line. 

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My ancestor was a polygamous too, all I remember is that the two wives couldn't stand one another and were very unmentionable when speaking about our ancestors. She was the woman who was given a pie that was found by her daughter on the trek to Salt Lake in the movie "17 Miracles".

Shocked that I was never told about her story, I had to hear from a friend of my mom's just a few years ago. I'm wondering if I need to try and find more in my line. 

As I recall the way it was supposed to work (I'm not saying everyone "followed the rules," but ...) a man was not supposed to take a second wife without the first wife's consent.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you believe Jacob meant when he said if the Lord wanted "raise seed unto the Lord" he would command his people. I know of no real-life occurrence since Jacob spoke. It's curious that he said that if was never to be implemented.

I think it's more just acknowledging key polygamy in their history (Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses) who they were likely appealing to in order to justify their actions. So he's just acknowledging God might direct it but until he does stop it.

With regards to Joseph, I think he knows about Jacob as it'd have been among the last works translated. He then switches to doing the Bible translation which is where I suspect the ideas really develop as he is translating Genesis.

Quote

I believe it was to create a core of faithful strong members that would solidify the Restoration. Maybe this could be proved by comparing the numbers of the generations of faithful members and leaders from polygamous families (especially the descendants of the brethren I mentioned earlier) with a similar number of descendants of contemporary monogamous families, or the non-polygamous LDS population in general to see if there really was an impact

I'd want to see activity statistic. I'm skeptical that children of those with many wives (say 4+) had more faithful children. While I have zero data I'd assume the opposite.

Quote

There are many ways to separate from society. Polygamy seems an oddly painful way to do it. Moving to the West where none would come to hurt or make afraid seems a more obvious choice. The Amish, Mennonites, and Jehovah's Witnesses manage it quite well. The Shakers separated themselves into oblivion. Monasteries work well.

Monasteries don't work for the  do't work for the entire believing community.  The Amish and Mennonites seem separated today but were less so in the 19th century. In terms of mid-19th century polygamy seemed to do it quite well.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

So no, Jacob does not state that God has commanded anyone to live polygamy.

But he does state (in God's voice), that he does command it under certain circumstances.  That is very different from saying that "God does not command polygamy". 

Joseph may or may not have had any children through polygamous wives, but I don't think that "raising up seed" unto God necessarily means having lots of children.  God could have been raising up Joseph himself as righteous seed through the command to live polygamy in D&C 132. 

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Levirate marriages include a commandment for a brother to marry and care for his dead brother's wife, not a specific commandment to live polygamy.  These marriages may include polygamy (if the living brother already has a wife), so it's evidence that God does allow polygamy under certain circumstances.  But there's no direct commandment to live polygamy here.  Also, this is not how Joseph practiced polygamy (other than when he married Don Carlos's widow).

There is also no commandment to live polyandry and a great many of Joseph's marriages were polyandrous (and some of Brigham's were too).

 My main objection is your statement that "God does not command polygamy".  You pretty much have to dismiss the law of Moses as God's command.  You also have to dismiss D&C 132 as Gods command, and also dismiss Jacob 2, where God states, "I will command" polygamy under certain circumstances.  I think polygamy is clearly established in scripture as a commandment of God for some under the law of Moses and the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.   

[Guest]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Being an long time convert I think our spiritual linage belongs to Joseph, while our physical linage belongs to Hyrum.

As do I, but no family has influenced the Church more. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So ... you don't believe that the children who resulted from such relationships ... including, at least indirectly, Your Humble Correspondent ... deserve to exist?  Because, whether you recognize it or not and whether you want to admit it or not, that's where your logic leads.

I am trying to follow your reasoning here.  Are you including the idea that polygyny was intended to raise up "righteous seed " or not?

I can sort of see it if the former, but there are lots of things we call sins that result in children, but we (as in the LDS Church) never define those children's existence as nondeserving based on their parents' choices that I am aware of.

Children (whatever age they are, infants to elderly) deserve to exist no matter how they got here, imo, though sometimes their right to exist may be set aside because of a greater need (if the mother would die, the parents need to decide what the impact on the rights of the family will be; the cost to keep one child alive may use up resources that could a hundred alive...thank goodness I have never had to face those kinds of decisions).

If you are saying the unique individual that is you would cease to exist if the exact circumstances were changed in the slightest, it seems to me you are removing the factors of free agency as well as our eternal natures.  Since we have been in existence for eternity, will 90ish years of mortal existence have such a profound effect on who we are that God must set things up so that all ancestors must meet and live in just such a manner that each child is born in the right family, at the right moment, in the right place or else that being will no longer exist eternally speaking?

Edited July 28, 2017 by Calm

[CMZ]

On 7/26/2017 at 6:21 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

But herein lies the problem, dispite [sic] having many wives, he desired another man's wife, which lead him to murder.

That was a problem with King David not controlling his lust, not a problem with polygamy itself.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

That was a problem with King David not controlling his lust, not a problem with polygamy itself.

I think you are splitting hairs with that argument, he (David)  had her husband sent to the battlefront, so when he died, David could not only take another wife, but also hide his sin. Solomon who was the second son of Bathsheba, took polygamy and went pro, as in the number of wives and concubines, and led Israel into idolatry, and ruin. We're there no polygamy, then it would not have happened as quickly, and been as destructive. In the OP, I made it clear that despite God allowing the practice, it almost always, if not always turns into a life of neglected wives, neglected children, broken men etc. Man is just too weak for the institution to remain in force for very long. This is why Jacob in the Book of Mormon railed against the practice, and why in the early Church men were called to practice polygamy, and why Oliver Cowdry left the Church. Because even the most righteous of men, are not equipped to live the doctrine of polygamy without eventual ruin, be it themselves or their children who come after them. 

As I also said in the OP, I am not a malcontent, disgruntled or believe the Church is false, nor that D&C 132, is wrong. As a student of history, scripture and Church history, and my own upbringing of having a bigamist father, I "can" see the forest for the trees. So I speak "as" one of those neglected children. So even if my bio-father was, or lived during polygamy, thus being a believer, and not a crimal. I have grown up into a world many will never know. The good thing is that my bio-father's behavior, made me a better husband and father.

I am just asking that others see it through my eyes, or at least through the eyes of all the bad examples of what polygamy does to family. The Church not longer supports it, so one need not fear viewing the topic through the eyes of "Seers", see the beginning from the end. Never fear of reprisal, since no question for a Temple Recommend does not ask if you support polygamy, or that you ever did or will support it. I had a long time friend who did many things that tore it apart, but he was looking forward to the day when it is employed (or adopted) again. He is not the only one, but he just started doing crazy things, the last outlandish comment was, "Even if I found out that the BoM was not true, I would still follow Joseph Smith". That fightened me, he did not me much when I said, "you world follow Joseph Smith knowing he was wrong, instead of Jesus Christ?"

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

But he does state (in God's voice), that he does command it under certain circumstances.  That is very different from saying that "God does not command polygamy". 

Joseph may or may not have had any children through polygamous wives, but I don't think that "raising up seed" unto God necessarily means having lots of children.  God could have been raising up Joseph himself as righteous seed through the command to live polygamy in D&C 132. 

 My main objection is your statement that "God does not command polygamy".  You pretty much have to dismiss the law of Moses as God's command.  You also have to dismiss D&C 132 as Gods command, and also dismiss Jacob 2, where God states, "I will command" polygamy under certain circumstances.  I think polygamy is clearly established in scripture as a commandment of God for some under the law of Moses and the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.   

I have not seen where God specifically commanded someone to live polygamy prior to when Joseph claimed he was commanded to live it.  Jacob did not record anyone being commanded and Levirate marriages may or may not involve polygamy (I recognize more did than not, but I believe they were commanded to take care of their dead brother's wife, not to specifically enter into polygamy and not with many wives). 

We will probably just need to agree to disagree here unless you have more references.  I certainly respect your right to disagree with how I believe regarding this and hope you have a great evening as I'm off of here until tomorrow!

Edited July 29, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I think you are splitting hairs with that argument...

I think there is a huge difference between murdering a husband to marry a wife polygamously and the way the vast majority of polygamous marriages occur.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Calm

[CMZ]

12 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I think you are splitting hairs with that argument, he (David)  had her husband sent to the battlefront, so when he died, David could not only take another wife, but also hide his sin. Solomon who was the second son of Bathsheba, took polygamy and went pro, as in the number of wives and concubines, and led Israel into idolatry, and ruin. We're there no polygamy, then it would not have happened as quickly, and been as destructive.

 

This incident still doesn't make polygamy inherently wrong. God never directed King David to murder someone else just to somehow fulfill a commandment to live polygamy, just as God does not now direct a single man to murder a married man so that the first man can then live monogamously by then marrying the deceased's wife. You can also have monogamously married men who neglect their children; that's not something that could only apply to polygamous situations. And, according to D&C 132, David's wives and concubines have eternally been given to another man. And I suspect that man to be Uriah.

Quote

D&C 132:39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by CMZ

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As I recall the way it was supposed to work (I'm not saying everyone "followed the rules," but ...) a man was not supposed to take a second wife without the first wife's consent.

I found this article, here's the portion about the other woman. Maybe she consented, but she had every right to be upset at how her husband brought the woman home with him. http://ldswomenshistory.blogspot.com/2010/03/mary-ann-mellor-and-louisa-mellor-clark.html

"Mary Ann, her husband, and her seven children all arrived safely in Utah. They were eventually called to settle Fayette (building the first brick home there), and in 1875, James was called to serve a mission to England. He returned in 1877, arriving on the doorstep with a woman named Mary (Polly) Knowles that he introduced to Mary Ann as a woman he’d brought back from England to be his plural wife. Stunned, Mary Ann stared at them for a few minutes, then showered them with a pan of fermenting milk and slammed the door. Eventually Mary Ann and Polly would have a cordial relationship. Louisa became the second wife of Edwin Clark, had nine children, and became active in temple work."