The March Continues: Up Next- Plural Marriage

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, CMZ said:

While the Church does not currently allow plural marriages I'm not sure why some members are against polygamy under any circumstance.

Except for the circumstances declared by Jacob. 

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Except for the circumstances declared by Jacob. 

 

You seem really hung up on this response.  Truth is that Joseph had no children from living plural marriage (that we know of) and we have no numbers (that I know of) stating how many of all the children you counted in your earlier post stayed in the church.  We know of many who did not (including children of BY’s).  There also most likely would be greater numbers of children born without the living of polygamy and there could have been many who converted and married into marriages where one was already a strong member.  Bringing more members into the church.

I honestly can’t tell what the point of this thread is.  Do you agree with polygamy as a form of marriage or disagree with it thinking it will lead to more damage to marriage?

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Except for the circumstances declared by Jacob. 

Also, I guess we can assume that you believe Joseph consummated his plural marriages? (If polygamy is only allowed to raise righteous seed or to have children.)

Edited May 27, 2018 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Except for the circumstances declared by Jacob. 

 

I for one do not share your interpretation of Jacob 2.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not sure what that means, but I find this interesting.

Brigham Young	56 children
John Taylor	34
Lorenzo Snow	42
Heber Kimball	66
Orson Pratt	45
Joseph F. Smith	45
William Clayton	42
Orson Hyde	32
Parley Pratt	30
Ezra T. Benson	35
George Q. Cannon	32
Wilford Woodruff	34
George A. Smith	20
Daniel H. Wells	40
Charles C. Rich	51
Amasa M. Lyman	38
Franklin D. Richards	29
Edwin D. Woolley	26
Erastus Snow	37
Newell Whitney	12
TOTAL	746

 

 

When I first looked at these numbers it seemed like a lot of children which supports the stated purpose of polygamy to raise up righteous seed.  But when you consider that Brigham Young had 27 wives, that is less than 2 children average for each wife. That would be way below average during that time for a woman. Which leads us to wonder exactly what the purpose of polygamy would be?

any thoughts?

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

When I first looked at these numbers it seemed like a lot of children which supports the stated purpose of polygamy to raise up righteous seed.  But when you consider that Brigham Young had 27 wives, that is less than 2 children average for each wife. That would be way below average during that time for a woman. Which leads us to wonder exactly what the purpose of polygamy would be?

any thoughts?

My thoughts exactly.  You have to be presumptuous enough to believe only those men named could raise righteous seed or that all these wives couldn’t raise righteous children unless they were married to these men.  These women could have had more children with other husbands and raised more children with a father who was more present in the home, imo, who were righteous seed.  There were many good men in addition to the ones named in that post.

Edited May 27, 2018 by JulieM

[carbon dioxide]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

My thoughts exactly.  You have to be presumptuous enough to believe only those men named could raise righteous seed or that all these wives couldn’t raise righteous children unless they were married to these few men.  These women could have had more children with other husbands and raised more children with a father who was more present in the home, imo, who were righteous seed.  There were many good men in addition to the ones named in that post.

Perhaps having too many kids and not giving them enough attention to raise them correctly is an issue.  Plus suppose a guy married 8 women but the guy is not able to have kids, are these marriages worthless because none of the women will be able to get pregnant?  I think polygamy just as monogamy is more than just having kids.  Even today, quite a few couples can't have kids but their marriages are no less than those that have a dozen kids.

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

When I first looked at these numbers it seemed like a lot of children which supports the stated purpose of polygamy to raise up righteous seed.  But when you consider that Brigham Young had 27 wives, that is less than 2 children average for each wife. That would be way below average during that time for a woman. Which leads us to wonder exactly what the purpose of polygamy would be?

any thoughts?

Yes. They were fulfilling the purpose as described by Jacob....raising seed. Certainly not every wife was able to have children. But just these 20 or so Church leaders accounted for almost 800 children to provide a faithful second generation and third generation of Saints to grow and power the infant Church. 

It was a substantial jumpstart. Of course not 100% of the children were faithful, but a great number were and they (men and women) provided several generations of leadership at the local and general Church levels, even up to our current leaders. Do I bregrudge that? Absolutely not. Rather than shading them, I think they deserve some respect, thanks, and honor. It was not an easy thing physically, economically, or spiritually. It required huge sacrifices for all concerned. It is a mistake to think it was just a bunch of depraved men getting their jollies. That is the way of the ageless mistress system, and it persists today - which is the topic of the OP.....there seems to be little stigma attached to living and sleeping with multiple partners, even having children by them, and not supporting the children. Some are even admired for their profligacy, like Hugh Hefner, Magic Johnson, Gene Simmons, and other celebrities.......unless you dare to marry them. Then all hell breaks loose as our soccer star just learned. Why is that? 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

You seem really hung up on this response.  Truth is that Joseph had no children from living plural marriage (that we know of) and we have no numbers (that I know of) stating how many of all the children you counted in your earlier post stayed in the church.  We know of many who did not (including children of BY’s).  There also most likely would be greater numbers of children born without the living of polygamy and there could have been many who converted and married into marriages where one was already a strong member.  Bringing more members into the church.

I honestly can’t tell what the point of this thread is.  Do you agree with polygamy as a form of marriage or disagree with it thinking it will lead to more damage to marriage?

Of course I’m hung up on Jacob. It’s the defining principle behind plural marriage. That’s should be acknowledged. 

No human enterprise even approaches 100% success. Adam, Joseph, Brigham, Lehi, Mosiah, Alma, Israel, the Early Church. Shoot....even my own family, for that matter. Notice the placement of the dots. That is irrelevant because Jacob says nothing about numbers. We can ask all kinds of what-ifs, but the fact remains that the rapid increase in faithful membership of the Church was increasedand several generations of faithful strong leaders were strongly influenced, men and women, by the children of plural marriage. Many were fortified with steeled resolve because of it. 

I’ll try one more time to explain the point. Given the new definition of marriage....a relationship between consenting adults.....what are the criteria that determine which relationships are allowed? The soccer star was just an example. It’s ok, even laudable, that he lives with two lovely ladies, but not ok if he marie’s them. What is the new standard? Are the number 2 or human partners even relevant, for example? Health issues are no longer relevant. What is? Just consent?

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. They were fulfilling the purpose as described by Jacob....raising seed. Certainly not every wife was able to have children. But just these 20 or so Church leaders accounted for almost 800 children to provide a faithful second generation and third generation of Saints to grow and power the infant Church. 

Why not ever name all the mothers it took to raise these 800 children?  I’d guess they had more to do with raising them than these 20 men spread thinly between 800 children.  

And, were there not many, many other good men who would have married these women monogamously and raised more children in the church?  They could have actually been in the home with their wife and all their children.  Also, men may have converted to the gospel and married these good women increasing the membership.  Your reasoning is faulty here, imo.

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course I’m hung up on Jacob. It’s the defining principle behind plural marriage. That’s should be acknowledged. 

... That is irrelevant because Jacob says nothing about numbers. 

No, but you do. 

Do you really believe these mothers couldn’t have raised righteous seed without being married to one of the 20 men named who produced 800 children?

Edited May 28, 2018 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, but you do. 

Do you really believe these mothers couldn’t have raised righteous seed without being married to one of the 20 men named who produced 800 children?

☺️For some women, it may have been a whole lot easier...and was done so alone anyway!

[Hestia]

Marginal Gains has been banned from the thread for personal insults and trolling.

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course I’m hung up on Jacob. It’s the defining principle behind plural marriage. That’s should be acknowledged. 

I  disagree.  Jacob 2 is not the defining principle for plural marriage.  It's a chastisement to a people living it incorrectly under a Mosaic society.  It references directly the bad examples of David and Solomon and a revocation of permission to practice plural marriage.

D&C 132 represents the principles upon which eternal plural marriage is founded.  It is a revelation, references Abraham and Jacob as the examples to follow, connects polygamy to the eternities, and gives instruction for our dispensation.  And finally connects to a Melchizedek level of ordinances.

D&C 132 provides the defining principles, not Jacob 2.

[JAHS]

I think one thing that might make it more difficult or at least take a longer time for polygamy to be made legal is the fact that there really aren't  very many people calling for it as there were for same sex marriages.  It might take a greater population of proponents who want to live the practice before any government would even consider allowing it or put it up for a vote. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I  disagree.  Jacob 2 is not the defining principle for plural marriage.  It's a chastisement to a people living it incorrectly under a Mosaic society.  It references directly the bad examples of David and Solomon and a revocation of permission to practice plural marriage.

D&C 132 represents the principles upon which eternal plural marriage is founded.  It is a revelation, references Abraham and Jacob as the examples to follow, connects polygamy to the eternities, and gives instruction for our dispensation.  And finally connects to a Melchizedek level of ordinances.

D&C 132 provides the defining principles, not Jacob 2.

I agree that 132 is a critical source, but I can't agree with your de-estimation of Jacob. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

Why not ever name all the mothers it took to raise these 800 children?  I’d guess they had more to do with raising them than these 20 men spread thinly between 800 children.  

And, were there not many, many other good men who would have married these women monogamously and raised more children in the church?  They could have actually been in the home with their wife and all their children.  Also, men may have converted to the gospel and married these good women increasing the membership.  Your reasoning is faulty here, imo.

You can fill in that obvious and egregious gap with the research you are going to do, the book you are going to publish, and the tours and seminars you will give as a result. Seriously.

As for the rest, my grampa used to say, "If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, but we don't have any eggs." Or as the current cliche goes, "It is what it is." What ifs are not reasoning.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, but you do. 

Do you really believe these mothers couldn’t have raised righteous seed without being married to one of the 20 men named who produced 800 children?

We can guess and surmise and presume all day and night. It leads nowhere. I named the men and gave the numbers only to show that IMO they were conforming with Jacob’s principles.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

☺️For some women, it may have been a whole lot easier...and was done so alone anyway!

I have repeatedly said it was difficult and required great faith, hardship, and sacrifice from all. All means all. That many of their children became Church leaders even down to our time is a huge testament to the faith, sacrifice, goodness, and dedication of the mothers. Did I leave out any complementary words? There probably aren't enough to describe what they did. I am certain their reward will be great.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think one thing that might make it more difficult or at least take a longer time for polygamy to be made legal is the fact that there really aren't  very many people calling for it as there were for same sex marriages.  It might take a greater population of proponents who want to live the practice before any government would even consider allowing it or put it up for a vote. 

Thank you, JAHS. At last someone addresses the OP. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I think you may be correct. There is not a great public outcry yet, and maybe never will be.  On the other hand, the power of pop culture, social media, and lawsuits to alter the course very quickly cannot be underestimated. Time will tell.

Back to the OP, why do you think living with, sleeping with, and having children with multiple women to whom one is not married is ok in many quarters, but it becomes reprehensible only when marriage enters the picture....as what apparently happened to our soccer player? What if Gene Simmons, Mick Jagger, Charlie Sheen, Warren Beatty, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson and other numerous celebrities and athletes announced they were going to marry the thousands of women they brag about sleeping with? They are affectionately and humorously called womanizers and their activities are called affairs or some other euphemism. What are they really? Or the neighborhood punks who have multiple children with multiple women, brag about it, and go about their usual business without consequence. Should they be prosecuted and jailed, too? Why are people who marry and raise families the ones who are condemned and imprisoned? Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating for a return of plural marriage. I am simply asking for clarification.

It appears the Puritans may get a boost with the help of #MeToo, maybe? 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I for one do not share your interpretation of Jacob 2.

That's ok with me. I'm sure there are many things we agree on. If I have time, I will look up the references  to his teaching used to justify plural marriage in the Journal of Discourses. I did an extensive search a while back and came up with some quotes, but for some dumb reason I did not save it.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[jpv]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you, JAHS. At last someone addresses the OP. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I think you may be correct. There is not a great public outcry yet, and maybe never will be.  On the other hand, the power of social media and lawsuits to alter the course very quickly cannot be underestimated. Time will tell.

Back to the OP, why do you think living with, sleeping with, and having children with multiple women to whom one is not married is ok in many quarters, but it becomes reprehensible only when marriage enters the picture?

Nobody is interested in answering your question it seems.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, jpv said:

Nobody is interested in answering your question it seems.

That's fine with me, although I really would like to know what others think about it. We have gone off on the usual tangents and derails. Are you interested? Thinking of Jacob (who makes the contrast from a prophet's point of view), why are "whoredoms" (his word) laudatory, but plural marriage is contemptible in the world?

Take the case of our soccer player. One day he is living the high life, partying and traveling with two, maybe three women, as if they were married. He is ultra cool, the ladies are cool, their situation and celebrity are awesome. Then he announces (it is rumored) that he plans to marry them. The next day the world crashes down on him. He is now a bad man. What changed?

Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, jpv said:

Nobody is interested in answering your question it seems.

I did mention before I found it strange, suppose I could speculate about the why...

I think the conflicting attitudes reflect the development of two different societal standards, one the idea that polygamy is barbaric...been around in European heritage for quite some time.  Don't see that attitude much changed these days.  It is seen as primitive or a throwback in most cases, a man taking advantage of women.

That attitude may change if it becomes framed as polyandry as much as polygyny or one of the variations of polyamory and hooks on strong enough to the whatever consenting adults want, it is none of our business attitudes.  Might be slowed by legal complications, but there are already tons of blended families dealing with complicated legal niceties, so who knows.

The second idea is sexual freedom.  Sex outside of marriage is no longer seen by many as immoral.  Couple that with the belief that women are drawn to powerful men and therefore it is the woman choosing to be with the man and therefore is not domination...man with multiple mistresses, not that big of a deal.

Iow, polygamy is still tied to a label of barbarism while having mistresses is losing its label of immorality as long as women aren't deceived.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I did mention before I found it strange, suppose I could speculate about the why...

I think the conflicting attitudes reflect the development of two different societal standards, one the idea that polygamy is barbaric...been around in European heritage for quite some time.  Don't see that attitude much changed these days.  It is seen as primitive or a throwback in most cases, a man taking advantage of women.

That attitude may change if it becomes framed as polyandry as much as polygyny or one of the variations of polyamory and hooks on strong enough to the whatever consenting adults want, it is none of our business attitudes.  Might be slowed by legal complications, but there are already tons of blended families dealing with complicated legal niceties, so who knows.

The second idea is sexual freedom.  Sex outside of marriage is no longer seen by many as immoral.  Couple that with the belief that women are drawn to powerful men and therefore it is the woman choosing to be with the man and therefore is not domination...man with multiple mistresses, not that big of a deal.

Iow, polygamy is still tied to a label of barbarism while having mistresses is losing its label of immorality as long as women aren't deceived.

Well, Calm, that’s a very interesting take on the issue. 

When Sister Gui and I were married in 1972, we decided we would not have a tv in our home. Books and music only. This lasted until our kids became old enough that they started spending lots of time at friends’ homes, which purpose we learned was to watch the friends’ tv. For about 7 or 8 years, IIRC, we didn’t watch tv. Lots of folks thought we were weird or didn’t have one because we were too poor, so they would offer to give us an old one. We were indeed weird and poor, but we didn’t take up the offers. Eventually we succumbed and bought our own in order to have a little control over what the kids watched. Our first week of tv in the late 70s....we thought we had woken up in Sodom and Gomorra! Talk about barbarism! Today we see those same shows on reruns and wonder why the heck they offended us so much. Considering the depravity of much that is standard fare today, we have come a long way, baby!

I have to say I’m surprised, I’m surprised, I say, that anyone today would be offended by a relic of barbarism. Is that enough to explain why so many extremely popular and influential people who have partners in the thousands get a pass, but a fellow who plans to officially marry two with whom he is living as if they were already married gets run out of town on a rail? Or is there something more in play?

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui