Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[longview]

4 minutes ago, Chum said:

Okay. But what does that have to do with discouraging discussion of an early or incomplete understanding (by branding it irrelevant)? Tie it together for me.

What are your thoughts on things in the temple foreshadowing actual performances and responsibilities in the Celestial World?  But if we ponder those things and every once in a while we might find an extra special insight in the scriptures that gives us a better understanding of the symbols in the temple.

Are you talking about @juliann discouraging discussion and making it irrelevant?  My only point is to encourage deeper ponderings of the scriptures and having the spirit.

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

If we only have a shadow of understanding, anything you say about it is irrelevant.

I get the impression that you have more than a "shadow of understanding", and would be very interested in whatever theories and/or conclusions your studies have led you to.  If you are comfortable sharing them.    

Edited December 9, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

What are your thoughts on things in the temple foreshadowing actual performances and responsibilities in the Celestial World? 

Regarding the overall picture, all we have are hints. I feel that trying to frame the possibilities shows ambition.

10 minutes ago, longview said:

Are you talking about @juliann discouraging discussion and making it irrelevant? 

Yep

10 minutes ago, longview said:

My only point is to encourage deeper ponderings of the scriptures and having the spirit.

Oh. I think you're saying your response was a non-sequitur. I can work with that.

[Tacenda]

My sister in law is probably the most TBM I know. She'd go to the temple on adult family trips while the others golfed or shopped and when I told her I struggled with JS's polygamy years ago, she said, "Yeah some of those leaders back then were dirty old men". I was shocked! And she's still stalwart! She wouldn't discuss Joseph Smith though. I think she just heard about other leaders.

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Tacenda

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

Quote

Still waiting for the theological need or reason for polygamy beyond "God said it just because". It's been over a decade of asking now and dead silence.

1. Because God commanded it;

2. Because obedience to a commandment is not, or should not be, predicated or contingent on first fully understanding God's motives, because God will, at times, command us to do things without necessarily fully explaining the reasoning for the commandment (see, e.g., Moses 5);

3. Because Jacob 2:30 references "rais{ing} up seed unto" God as being a (likely partial) explanation for why God will, at times, command His people to practice polygamy;

4. Because, amonth the various possible explanations cited in the above FAIR article, polygamy "was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints";

5. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "served to 'set apart' his people as a peculiar people to the world" because "{t}his social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived";

6. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "was part of the "restoration of all things";

7. Because, also per the FAIR article, through polygamy "{n}umerous family ties were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church";

8. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time."

None of those are a theological or doctrinal reason for eternal marriage involving multiple wives.

With respect, I disagree.  1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are - in my view - plainly doctrinal, and 5 could be derivatively construed in that way.

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why? Why would that even be a thing?

This seems like a No True Scotsman issue.  You asked for "theological or doctrinal reason{s}," I provided some, you dismiss them outright and then re-pose the question.

Anyway, the answers are:

Because God has sometimes commanded it.  See, e.g., D&C 76 and Jacob 2:30.

Because obedience is important.  See 1 Samuel 15:22 ("Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."), D&C 130:20-21 ("There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated.  And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.").

Because God will sometimes use polygamy to "raise up seed unto" Him.  See Jacob 2:30.

(Possibly) because polygamy needed to be a part of the "restoration of all things."  See D&C 27:6.

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

What possible holiness would adding more people to an earthly marriage make?

Perhaps that's a question that could only be fully answered by those who experienced it.  Those of us looking at polygamy from the outside, and removed from it by 130 or so years, are not really situated to speak about experientially about such matters.

That said, I think the answer is that, for many who participated in polygamy, it did add "holiness" to their lives.  

There were also practical benefits, it seems.  See here:

Quote

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich is a historian’s historian. For more than three decades, she has dazzled her profession with archival discoveries, creative spark and an ability to see “history” where it once appeared there was none to be seen. Her most famous book, “A Midwife’s Tale” (1990), focused on what seemed for generations to be a useless source — the prosaic, detailed diary of an 18th-century New England midwife. Out of these centuries-old jottings, Ulrich conjured an entire social world centered on women’s emotions, experiences and labor. It was one of the most celebrated historical works of the 1990s, winner of the Pulitzer Prize and required reading for any self-respecting history graduate student. To an unusual degree, Ulrich put her stamp on a particular historical method: She went in search of women’s daily lives before the Industrial Revolution, and she used the personal diary as her point of entry.

This approach figures prominently in Ulrich’s latest book, “A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women’s Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835-1870.” This time, there are several diaries, all of them written by men and women who lived through the perilous early years of the Mormon Church. These intimate sources survived through a variety of means: tucked away in tin bread boxes, stashed in basements, hidden in log-cabin walls. Through them, Ulrich seeks to uncover how women experienced the strange and controversial new practice of polygamy, or “plural marriage.”
...
“A House Full of Females” is sensitive to the difficulty and confusion that accompanied early plural marriage, with its implied loss of status for women. But the book also tells a more complicated tale about women’s on-the-ground experiences. While some women objected to plural marriage, Ulrich notes, others sought it out as a means of securing economic stability or of escaping from abusive marriages. Still others came to embrace plural marriage as a form of communitarianism, in which women shared domestic burdens and labor. Ulrich describes friendships and rivalries between wives (themes that will be familiar to any viewer of HBO’s “Big Love”). She even makes a case for plural marriage as a vehicle for a form of feminist consciousness-raising. Although outsiders referred to Brigham Young’s home as his “harem,” Ulrich writes, “it could also have been described as an experiment in cooperative housekeeping and an incubator of female activism.”

As evidence for this budding political sensibility, she points to the little-known fact that the territory of Utah granted women the right to vote in 1870, a full half-century before the federal constitutional amendment. Unlike Wyoming, the first to approve woman suffrage, Utah was already majority-female at that point, and many of those Mormon women supported both suffrage and plural marriage.

And here:

Quote

In 1880, Louisa Barnes Pratt boarded a train in Salt Lake City for a trip to the East. Other passengers showed interested reactions to her presence, and she remembered that “As soon as it was announced that there were ladies from Utah in the Car, a curiosity was at once excited. Some few there were who would shun me. Others were attracted, would draw near, [and] show a desire to converse.”¹ For those who especially wanted to debate the practice of plural marriage with her, Louisa attempted to engage in lively conversation, draw upon scriptural references, and finally, bear her testimony. Not the “silent, degraded woman” of nineteenth-century stereotypes, Louisa declared, “I found it the better way to avoid argument as much as possible, but would testify boldly to what I knew to be true.” Later on the same trip, Louisa met a Presbyterian clergyman, who, upon learning that Louisa was from Utah, was “very reserved and silent.” She remembered, “I could see prejudice in his eyes, and on his knitted browÖ” Like she had done before, she attempted to disarm her critic: “I took no trouble to draw him into conversationÖ”²

This story and others like it speak to the pervasive misperceptions and misunderstandings leveled at Mormon women throughout the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. High-profile Mormon women spent much of the nineteenth century defending themselves to their critics-anti-Mormons, government leaders, first-wave feminists and women’s suffrage activists, and from the many “Save the Mormon Women” societies that proliferated around the country in the latter part of the century. Much like Mormon women today, nineteenth-century foremothers encountered great curiosity, criticism, and of course, prejudice for their place as women in a patriarchal religion that openly practiced plural marriage.³

President Eliza R. Snow, at an 1870 indignation meeting in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, declared “The very idea of a woman here in a state of slavery is a burlesque on good common sense.”⁴ Further, Snow offered one of the most famous defenses of the status of Mormon women, which rings just as appropriate today as it did in 1870.

Quote

Were we the stupid, degraded, heartbroken beings that we have been represented, silence might better become us; but, as women of God, women who stand not as dictators, but as counselors to their husbands, and who, in the purest, noblest sense of refined womanhood, being truly their helpmates, we not only speak because we have the right, but justice and humanity demand that we should.⁵

 

And here:

Quote

Women defended plural marriage by saying it allowed all women who desired to reach their full potential and become honored wives and mothers. They felt confident in the goodness of their husbands and took their domestic role seriously. They cited the health and well-being of their children as a manifestation of this. Mormons also believed that polygamy eradicated one of the greatest social evils of their time: prostitution. In fact, in Orson Pratt’s speech officially announcing plurality of wives in 1852, he addressed the thorn of adultery in modern Babylon, and believed polygamy prevented prostitution and adultery, thus further separating Zion from the world. Women who would otherwise be prostitutes could become honored wives and mothers with “legitimate” children.

Additionally, Mormon women felt they filled the role as moral pillar of society and set a standard for good works in their communities. Their choices were based on strict religious faith and many of their efforts were consecrated to building the kingdom of God and their communities. Utah women were very proud of the advancements for women in their society. Utah created comparatively liberal laws, in part to allow polygamous households to function adequately. Unlike other parts of the Western world, women could own property, find gainful employment, divorce easily if unions were unhappy, and vote as early as 1870. Women were also not prevented from attending institutions of higher education. These liberal practices would have surprised those convinced of woman’s helpless and hapless condition in Utah.

And here (same link) :

Quote

Every woman’s story for entering polygamy is different, but there are strands of similarities that motivated women to participate in the practice. Men also have stories that need to be told, but, for today’s purposes, I will focus on the shared patterns of women’s stories.

Popular explanations for plural marriage today include, “Women married in polygamy because their husbands died while crossing the plains and they had five children to take care of and no spouse.” That was the answer I grew up with. Although that may have been true for some women, in large part women married in polygamy out of deliberate choice, not out of desperation.

I. Religious Conviction: Highest eternal reward

The majority of Mormon women entered polygamy because of religious conviction. They believed in the divine restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith, and placed immense faith in the words of the prophets—God’s mouthpieces on earth. Those prophets preached polygamy as a divine principle, and “true Latter-day Saints” accepted it. Many adherents believed that by participating in the sealing ordinance, particularly that of plural marriage, they could elevate their standing before God in the after life. Because of that conviction, Mormon men and women participated in a complex, hotly-debated marriage system in the name of faith.

Under the umbrella of religious conviction, Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage because they believed it was a commandment of God as revealed through His prophets, they hoped for blessings in the world to come for themselves and their posterity, they wanted to raise a righteous posterity, they were counseled to participate in polygamy by Church leaders, and they were converted to do so be scriptural and prophetic evidence.

Again, in my experience reading the stories of women who practiced polygamy, almost all include some element of testimony affirming that they believed the practice was of God and was a divine principle, even if they eventually discontinued the practice or even left the Church entirely. I selected several stories to illustrate women entering polygamy primarily because of their conviction that plural marriage was a commandment of God, but could have chosen many more.

The article goes on to quote, at length, Sarah Barnes Layton, Elizabeth Kane (as an observer, not practitioner, of polygamy), Lorena Washburn Larsen, Margaret McNeil Ballard.  Percipient witnesses, all.

Candidly, I find your seeming antipathy to polygamy to be rather strange, as your questions seem to require us to ignore the voices of the women who practiced it.  You regularly rake me across the coals for supposedly not listening to women now, but you don't seem to be paying attention to the perspectives of women then.

We could also ask "what possible holiness would sacrificing animals and burning their carcasses on an altar make?"

"Wherefore ... seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works."  (Jacob 4:10.)

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is what I continue to ask and has yet to be answered.

No True Scotsman again.

The above link takes you to a 2015 FAIR presentation by Brittany Chapman Nash.  Here's the layout:

Quote

An Act of Religious Conviction: Mormon Women and Nineteenth-Century Polygamy

Four Puzzle Pieces
1. Theology
2. Accurate historical sources
3. Historical context
4. Experiences of those who practiced plural marriage

I. Religious Conviction: Highest eternal reward

II. Religious Conviction: Raise up Righteous Seed

III: Decision to practice plural marriage

Marriage for Love

FAIR has all sorts of stuff about this topic, some of the most relevant may be:

• The purpose of plural marriage
• Valerie Hudson, "A Reconciliation of Polygamy"
• Does Joseph Smith's lack of children through polygamy contradict the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth"?
• Divine manifestions to plural wives and families

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

The only reasons ever given at the time were to add glory to the man and you are well aware of that.

I am not at all aware of the reasons other people have given to you.

And "Add{ing} glory to the man" is news to me.

Consider Zina Huntington's statement:

Quote

I searched the scripture & buy {by} humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in this church, I mad{e} a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated a gain {again} to be looked uppon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved {but} could I compremise conience lay aside the sure testimony of the spiret of God for the Glory of this world…

Nothing in there about "add{ing} glory to the man."

Sarah Leavitt:

Quote

...I thought that the Anointed of the Lord would not get more wives unless they were commanded to do so. But still I wanted a knowledge of the truth for myself. I asked my husband if he did not think we could get a revelation for ourselves on that subject. He said he did not know....{That evening} my mind was carried away from the earth and I had a view of the order of the celestial kingdom....I have seen so much wrong connected with this ordinance that had I not had it revealed to me from Him that cannot lie{,} I should have...doubted the truth of it, but there has never a doubt crossed my mind concerning the truth of it since the Lord made it known to me by a heavenly vision.

My mind was carried away from the earth and I had a view of the order of the celestial kingdom. I saw that it {plural marriage} was the order there and oh, how beautiful. I was filled with love and joy that was unspeakable. I waked my husband and told him of the views I had and that the ordinance was from the Lord, but it would damn thousands. It was too sacred for fools to handle, for they would use it to gratify their lustful desires.

Nothing in there about "add{ing} glory to the man."

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is the irony of this whole mess.

I see mess, but not irony.  

I also see the No True Scotsman fallacy.

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

All of the reasons given at the time (which is really where we need to look for answers) have been rejected.

Not sure what you are saying here.

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

But rather than acknowledging that,  ad hoc reasons and speculations are created on the fly to keep what was a failed practice on the table.

There is nothing ad hoc about Jacob 2:30, D&C 76, and many, many other cited bases for the practice of polygamy. 

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Meanwhile, we are losing women to this unnecessary nonsense. 

And men, too.

People fretting about a practice that ended 130 years ago.  A practice they are not called upon to live.  Classic "First World Problem."

That's not to say it's not having repercussions, though.

Back in August I compiled many of my previous comments about and citations to materials about polygamy.

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

The restoration of all things has to be the worst, BTW, because all things weren't "restored." At all.  And no one has bemoaned that or called the church false because of it.

No True Scotsman and Appeal to Ridicule.

Perhaps the restoration is an ongoing process.  Or perhaps we're really presently situated to fully grasp the concept.

Or perhaps it's a flawed explanation.  Sure, I'm open to that.  But conclusory sneering, as you do here, won't do much to persuade me.  No evidence.  No reasoning.  

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

As for animal sacrifice, seriously? Do you eat meat? Or are you not aware that sacrificed meat was eaten? So your only objection could be the manner in which they were killed. Do you consider slaughterhouses more humane or something? I don't understand this.

Appeal to Ridicule.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

I get the impression that you have more than a "shadow of understanding", and would be very interested in whatever theories and/or conclusions your studies have led you to.  If you are comfortable sharing them.    

It has mainly been a process of elimination. When I started in apologetics, I vigorously defended polygamy with the usual after the fact rationales. I come from a third wife so it seemed natural.  I became a scholar, which was then only beginning to move from a male enterprise into feminist scholarship of the Bible. When I was finally forced to pay attention through the viewpoints of women, polygamy stopped making sense because none of the reasons for it held up. And we got the reasons a lot on this board. Initially, the women here were called names, like apostate, if we disagreed with anything the priesthood holders here claimed as doctrine. I'm sure any woman here will validate that. It has only been in the last several years that there have been enough of us to hold our own, which has created a lot of wimpering whenever the label mansplaining is applied. (And mansplaining applies in a situation where the vast majority of the participants were women but men insist on lecturing us about the holy experience of being a woman in polygamy.)  The treatment of women on this board was probably the greatest incentive for finally demanding a doctrinal reason for polygamy beyond "I ... and God .... say so." 

First, [wo]men are that they might have joy. So Mormon men create a world for women to have miserable and stunted lives.  Not to mention a lifestyle that defies the Proclamation on the Family and anything we even remotely believe about the necessity of a father in his children's lives or his responsibility for support. 

Second, the necessity of polygamy has been dispensed with by leadership, beginning with the first Manifesto and ending with recent announcements that it served its purpose. There are NO living prophets advocating for it. NONE. Quite the opposite. 

Third, every contemporary reason/excuse has been discarded or is nonsensical when placed in the context of current teaching. Every contemporary account points to women being used for the glory of the man in the eternities for increased progeny. No one can defend polygamy without going back to these very things, especially dead prophets which we are told are superceded by live ones. That has to be thrown out to advocate for polygamy and it is, even by those who then turn around and staunchly defend modern prophets.

Fourth, JS never explained it and recent scholarship all points to his belief in securing the human family through sealing as the motivation, not the magical holiness of one woman not being adequate for the exaltation of one man.

Fifth, BY revised polygamy to the point there is little comparison with Nauvoo and JS. And just as JS's version diminished women's lives (and included polyandry,) BY's personal example of the practice of it was shockingly abusive. 

Sixth, polygamy was dying of it's own dead weight even before the Manifesto. After the Manifesto, there are too many examples of excess women and children being abandoned to consider the practice anywhere close to being righteous. To properly discuss polygamy, it has to be done by each stage and that never happens. It is treated as a one size fits all to avoid the messy parts.

Seventh, the refusal of too many to acknowledge the reality of polyandry, particularly with JS. The fear of this has exploded into a truly reprehensible discussion of the sex lives of our foremothers and JS. This, to me, has been the most apparent proof of how sick the need to keep polygyny "doctrinal" has become. That is why polygamy remains to this day all about the desires of men. Ironically, back to modern times, women are being sealed to more than one living husband by special request. Why this isn't openly acknowledged and put into general practice is a mystery but oh, well. 

Were there happy polygamist families? Sure. But there are too many stories, thanks to the now more open scholarship, of miserable situations and women who publicly supported it but privately wrote of their real situations to ignore anymore. Polygamy was a historical practice of great interest that needs to be explored, but something that destructive should never be held up as doctrinal or ongoing (anymore than the priesthood ban) and it is just as wrong to continue to try to force it into the eternities. We have perpetrated a situation where married men are openly discussing aquiring future girlfriends and for some reason, that is not considered to be a perp walk straight into the bishop's office. It is sick. It harms our girls and women. 

* I should add the most explosive but least well known reason: women, like Eliza Snow, advised other women to not love their husbands to survive polygamy.  Why? To release them from the Curse of Eve. That is how the women explained polygamy. This can be found in BY's talks as well. So whoever wants to uphold the contemporary reasons for polygamy to make it "doctrinal" is required to use this one, as well. Unless they don't value the experiences and voices of women, of course. 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by juliann

[kimpearson]

On 12/7/2021 at 5:22 AM, JLHPROF said:

You seem to be of the opinion that because the practice was difficult, unpleasant to go through at times, feelings got hurt, people had to be more independent, that this means it couldn't be from God.

Are those things in our lives not literally the things that make us turn to God, pray more, grow faith, work to overcome the natural man?

I'm not going to try and convince you of anything since your mind appears completely made up.  But I will say you seem to have the wrong view of trials and difficulties.  Just because something is hard or unpleasant doesn't make it wrong.  Conversely just because something brings constant peace doesn't make it right.

Sorry, but real blessings come through rough roads, not smooth ones.  Exaltation will absolutely require a willingness to sacrifice all things, including feelings, peace, and comfort.

"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....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 sought nor will he seek His face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life."

I don't believe in a God that would give a commandment that would cause family relationships to weaken not strengthen.  I believe in a God that requires hard difficult things that makes one grow in inner strength, humility, love and compassion.  I believe in a God who views the power and opportunities of life equally for men and women and would never require something for the eternities that would put women in a position of less than men which I view polygamy as.  I believe in a God that would never give a commandment that would break the soul of someone by making them feel less than others.  I believe in a God who lets humans try out many different approaches to living life so that they might learn from their own experience right from wrong.  I believe God allowed polygamy so that men and some women would learn it isn't God's way for a family.  By the way I also believe that Father and Mother in Heaven rule equally with the same priesthood power and are collectively what humans refer to as God, Father in Heaven, Elohim.  I also leave open the door for Godhood to for two men or two women joined eternally but I have no evidence by revelation that is how the plan works in the eternities.  In short I believe the truth of something can be judged by the good results it brings in peoples lives.  I can't see one good result from polygamy.  I see great results from the suffering of persecution of the early saints.  I have grown more like God by facing the struggles of life to make a living, raise a family, marry a woman I love, illness, making mistakes and sinning .  I know that living in a fallen world along with its many challenges, blessing and a whole lot of unknown has helped my soul become better.  I have learned shame is not helpful but recognition that I have done something to hurt myself or others and feeling that pain brings repentance.  I have learned God vary rarely directly touches our lives but rather we at times reach out worthily and touch God.  So name me another commandment of God that brought about all the negative experiences of polygamy and the current hurt to the hearts of so many women in this Church.

 

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

FAIR has all sorts of stuff about this topic, some of the most relevant may be:

• The purpose of plural marriage
• Valerie Hudson, "A Reconciliation of Polygamy"
• Does Joseph Smith's lack of children through polygamy contradict the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth"?
• Divine manifestions to plural wives and families

 

Smac, are you at all aware of what mansplaining means? You know I was a FAIR founder. Did you know that I arranged for Hudson to speak? You still haven't exceeded my favorite experience with mansplaining though. I was advised by a man (it might have been on this board) to read a book on apologetics to which I had contributed a chapter. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

The article goes on to quote, at length, Sarah Barnes Layton, Elizabeth Kane (as an observer, not practitioner, of polygamy), Lorena Washburn Larsen, Margaret McNeil Ballard.  Percipient witnesses, all.

Candidly, I find your seeming antipathy to polygamy to be rather strange, as your questions seem to require us to ignore the voices of the women who practiced it.  You regularly rake me across the coals for supposedly not listening to women now, but you don't seem to be paying attention to the perspectives of women then.

We could also ask "what possible holiness would sacrificing animals and burning their carcasses on an altar make?"

 

You have admitted that you are completely unaware of anything about the belief of men at the time that polygamy would increase their eternal kingdom so I don't find you credible on this topic, smac.

That aside, dragging out cherry picked quotes from women to claim I don't listen to women has an air of desperation. I have often mentioned the revelations of women...but here is where we differ. I also mention the revelation of women that they would have one husband in the eternites. I also mention the diaries of women where they felt safe in expressing their true feelings. Somehow I doubt you own or even read these books. Add this one to your database, how many sisters do you think were saying this to require such a rebuke? Do their revelations matter, smac? 

Quote

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away, although some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself. - Remarks by Heber C. Kimball, directly after the sermon by President B. Young, printed in no. 34: Bowery, Oct. 6, 1855," Deseret News Vol. V, No. 35 (7 November 1855): 274 .

I expect to see some of these quotes in your next lecture about women's experiences, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24243874?seq=8#metadata_info_tab_contents

Quote

The most poignant discussion of Eve's curse argued that it might be removed by enduring the trials of polygamy. Significantly, of the three parts of Eve's curse—the pain of childbirth, desire for her husband, and submitting to her husband's rrule--many nineteenth-century Mormon women focused their attention on their desire for their husband, an aspect that is rarely seen as a curse by contemporary women. But this part of the curse takes on special meaning in the context of a polygamous society. To these women, to have intense desires for a husband whom one has to share with another woman or women was indeed a curse. And the weight of enduring the principle is subliminally evident in their words. 

 

 

Quote

For these women, freedom from the curse of desiring their hus band came only by practicing plural marriage, an institution that could only amplify that desire and longing. Women saw themselves as being redeemed from suffering the insecurities, anxieties, and jealou sies of having sister wives by working to overcome these very insecuri ties, anxieties, and jealousies. Plural marriage led women who prac ticed it to see the primary curse placed upon them as being the desire for their husbands, but it also led them to see redemption from that curse through enduring its practice. Unsurprisingly, after the Manifesto of 1890, this line of thought disappears entirely from the pages of the Exponent. But the hope for eventual redemption continued into the new century. "The daughters of Eve will, we think, be instrumental in a great measure through the Gospel in effecting the redemption of woman from the curse," Emmeline Wells wrote in 1907. "Redeemed from the curse, her triumph, her song of victory will be greater and loftier far than Miriam's or Deborah's of old."  p 172-173

 

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

You have admitted that you are completely unaware of anything about the belief of men at the time that polygamy would increase their eternal kingdom so I don't find you credible on this topic, smac.

That aside, dragging out cherry picked quotes from women to claim I don't listen to women has an air of desperation. I have often mentioned the revelations of women...but here is where we differ. I also mention the revelation of women that they would have one husband in the eternites. I also mention the diaries of women where they felt safe in expressing their true feelings. Somehow I doubt you own or even read these books. Add this one to your database, how many sisters do you think were saying this to require such a rebuke? Do their revelations matter, smac? 

I expect to see some of these quotes in your next lecture about women's experiences, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24243874?seq=8#metadata_info_tab_contents

 

 

 

Mac drop 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

You have admitted that you are completely unaware of anything about the belief of men at the time that polygamy would increase their eternal kingdom

I have not admitted that.

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

so I don't find you credible on this topic, smac.

I'm okay with that.  I don't find you very credible either.  Dodges and logical fallacies are all you bring to the table on this topic.

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

That aside, dragging out cherry picked quotes from women to claim I don't listen to women has an air of desperation.

I think it merits attention that your 21st century gripes about polygamy (a practice you have never experienced) are, somehow, superior to and privileged over the words of some of the 19th-century women who did experience it. 

That and your repeated use of the No True Scotsman fallacy does not really work.

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

I have often mentioned the revelations of women...but here is where we differ. I also mention the revelation of women that they would have one husband in the eternites.

With respect, so what?  How does that substantiate or buttress your antipathy toward polygamy?

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

I also mention the diaries of women where they felt safe in expressing their true feelings.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that the practice of polygamy was very much a mixed bag.  It worked very well for some, very poorly for others.

That's quite a separate question, though, of whether polygamy is ordained of God.

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

Somehow I doubt you own or even read these books.

You would be correct.

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

Add this one to your database, how many sisters do you think were saying this to require such a rebuke?

What rebuke?

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

Do their revelations matter, smac? 

For them and theirs, yes. 

To the extent they are congruent with the revelations to the Church, yes.

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

I expect to see some of these quotes in your next lecture about women's experiences, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24243874?seq=8#metadata_info_tab_contents

What quotes do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have not admitted that.

 

Direct quote from you,

Quote

 

I am not at all aware of the reasons other people have given to you.

And "Add{ing} glory to the man" is news to me.

 

 

[kimpearson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have repeatedly acknowledged that the practice of polygamy was very much a mixed bag.  It worked very well for some, very poorly for others.

That's quite a separate question, though, of whether polygamy is ordained of God.

Please provide your evidence that it worked very well for some.  I am not asking for evidence that those involved felt it was a command from God or they felt they were strengthened by the challenge.  I want to hear evidence that husband and wives grew closer, that children prospered and had better relationships with their parents because of polygamy.  I want to hear evidence that children's testimonies grew because of the polygamy of their parents.  I want to hear evidence that children saw polygamy as making their life happier with strong senses of self worth because of polygamy.  I have read of some wives growing close to their fellow wives but the stories seem to indicate the friendship arose because the husband was not there and the other wife was the only other adult in the woman's daily life.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Smac, are you at all aware of what mansplaining means?

Yeah.  It's often used as pejorative intended to silence a man by tacitly accusing him of sexism for daring to disagree with a woman.

You know, like you do so regularly.

If I said to you "Shut up.  You are a woman, and therefore are not entitled to voice your opinion on this subject," you would (quite correctly) take that as abject sexism.  Because, well, it would be.  Me dismissing (or worse, attemping to stifle) your expressed perspective solely because you are a woman would be per se sexism. 

I have spent a lot of time working with women in an adversarial setting.  Fortunately, the women lawyers of my acquaintance are quite good at focusing on substantive reasoning and evidence, rather than sexist put-downs like "mansplaining."

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You know I was a FAIR founder.

Vaguely.  

That said . . . Wow.  You went there.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Did you know that I arranged for Hudson to speak?

Nope.

First a patently misandrous put-down intended to silence a dastardly Y-chromosome-carrier who doesn't agree with you, and who presumes to give voice to that disagreement.

Next, a "Don't you know who I am?"-style reference to your affiliation with FAIR.

Lese-majesté!

/sarcasm

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Please provide your evidence that it worked very well for some.  I am not asking for evidence that those involved felt it was a command from God or they felt they were strengthened by the challenge.  I want to hear evidence that husband and wives grew closer, that children prospered and had better relationships with their parents because of polygamy.  I want to hear evidence that children's testimonies grew because of the polygamy of their parents.  I want to hear evidence that children saw polygamy as making their life happier with strong senses of self worth because of polygamy.  I have read of some wives growing close to their fellow wives but the stories seem to indicate the friendship arose because the husband was not there and the other wife was the only other adult in the woman's daily life.

What would you accept as evidence? Wouldn't you wave away journal entries, etc. as anecodotal? 

I'm a little incredulous that you set your bar so low. Of course it worked very well "for some." My ancestors were mostly on the poor end of the polygamy spectrum, and it worked out well for most of them. The Frys, in particular, were well-known for this (husband and wives as well as the wives with each other). He was a stake president in Morgan, Utah. My grandmother was a prolific compiler of books on all branches of the family, using journals and other sources, and there is very strong handed-down family traditions of the marital harmony with all of them especially. Of course, modern critics of polygamy probably wave all of this away as propaganda.

I'm quite surprised at this assumption that it was terrible for everyone, and anyone who said differently was lying. 

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah.  It's often used as pejorative intended to silence a man by tacitly accusing him of sexism for daring to disagree with a woman.

You know, like you do so regularly.

If I said to you "Shut up.  You are a woman, and therefore are not entitled to voice your opinion on this subject," you would (quite correctly) take that as abject sexism.  Because, well, it would be.  Me dismissing (or worse, attemping to stifle) your expressed perspective solely because you are a woman would be per se sexism. 

I have spent a lot of time working with women in an adversarial setting.  Fortunately, the women lawyers of my acquaintance are quite good at focusing on substantive reasoning and evidence, rather than sexist put-downs like "mansplaining."

Vaguely.  

That said . . . Wow.  You went there.

Nope.

First a patently misandrous put-down intended to silence a dastardly Y-chromosome-carrier who doesn't agree with you, and who presumes to give voice to that disagreement.

Next, a "Don't you know who I am?"-style reference to your affiliation with FAIR.

Lese-majesté!

/sarcasm

Thanks,

-Smac

Anything I say with some posters here gets termed "mansplaining", I suppose because I am a man explaining my opinions.

Can't win for losing.

I suppose by that logic every comment by a woman would be... "womansplaining" I suppose.

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by mfbukowski

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

First a patently misandrous put-down intended to silence a dastardly Y-chromosome-carrier who doesn't agree with you, and who presumes to give voice to that disagreement.

Next, a "Don't you know who I am?"-style reference to your affiliation with FAIR.

Lese-majesté!

/sarcasm

Thanks,

-Smac

Let me help you out with the definition of mansplaining. Hint: it's not who a woman is. It is what she knows. It is about how you patronize women on this board who challenge your rhetoric. The next time you want to cherry pick through women's experiences, use quotes instead of giviing me links to my own organization for cryin' out loud. 

Definition of mansplain

 

transitive + intransitive

of a man

: to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I'm quite surprised at this assumption that it was terrible for everyone, and anyone who said differently was lying. 

Can you provide the quote of anything that comes close to that?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

Let me help you out with the definition of mansplaining.

Oh, the irony.

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

Hint: it's not who a woman is. It is what she knows.

Nah.  

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is about how you patronize women on this board who challenge your rhetoric.

Malarky.  I don't differentiate my treatment of women from my treatment of men.  

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

The next time you want to cherry pick through women's experiences, use quotes instead of giviing me links to my own organization for cryin' out loud. 

"My own organization."

Got it.

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

Definition of mansplain

transitive + intransitive

of a man

: to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic

Oh, the irony.

I've never assumed you have no knowledge about the topic.  Far from it.  Rather, I disagree with your conclusions (some of them), and with your misandrous put-downs of men who disagree with you.  

-Smac

Edited December 9, 2021 by smac97

[Olmec Donald]

Thank you so much Juliann for taking the time to reply.  I think that's the best analysis of polygamy I have yet seen.

4 hours ago, juliann said:

First, [wo]men are that they might have joy.

YES!!! 

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Fourth, JS never explained it and recent scholarship all points to his belief in securing the human family through sealing as the motivation, not the magical holiness of one woman not being adequate for the exaltation of one man.

My amateur non-scholarly investigation led me to think that, in the last ten months or so of his life, Joseph's attention and "exaltation model" shifted from polygamist "Abraham et al" to the "Quorum of the Anointed" (with women as well as men being Quorum members) as the blueprint, and perhaps he was in the process of making that course-correction when he was killed?

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Fifth, BY revised polygamy to the point there is little comparison with Nauvoo and JS.

Agreed!   

4 hours ago, juliann said:

And just as JS's version diminished women's lives (and included polyandry,) BY's personal example of the practice of it was shockingly abusive. 

Agreed.  And it undermines my respect of Joseph Smith.  "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of having seven wives, when here I can find but one."  Intentional deception is imo a crack in the foundation. 

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Seventh, the refusal of too many to acknowledge the reality of polyandry, particularly with JS. The fear of this has exploded into a truly reprehensible discussion of the sex lives of our foremothers and JS. This, to me, has been the most apparent proof of how sick the need to keep polygyny "doctrinal" has become. That is why polygamy remains to this day all about the desires of men. Ironically, back to modern times, women are being sealed to more than one living husband by special request. Why this isn't openly acknowledged and put into general practice is a mystery but oh, well. 

Yup, I recall the first time I noticed verse 41 of D&C 132.  It seemed to imply polyandry, so I did some amateur sleuthing, and sure enough.

4 hours ago, juliann said:

I should add the most explosive but least well known reason: women, like Eliza Snow, advised other women to not love their husbands to survive polygamy. 

This is absolutely chilling.

[ranting at someone who cannot hear me] Dangit Eliza, you're SMARTER than that!!  You KNEW "[wo]men are that they might have joy", how COULD you have embraced and taught just a barren-of-joy concept?  Cue the despair of "I Am a Rock" by Simon and Garfunkle.  [/rant]

Edited December 10, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I've never assumed you have no knowledge about the topic.  Far from it.  Rather, I disagree with your conclusions (some of them), and with your misandrous put-downs of men who disagree with you.  

 

Is there where I am supposed to shed tears and whine? I haven't taken notes when the men do it so I'm at a loss. 

BTW, do you not realize misandrous, hatred of men,  is the equivalent of misogyny, not mansplaining? 

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

Can you provide the quote of anything that comes close to that?

Kim Pearson's request for evidence "that it worked very well for some" expresses skepticism that it worked at all for any women (at least that's how I took it). 

May I take this as your belief that some women actually had good experiences and good marriage relationships with their husbands? I'll let Kim speak for himself, but I would be thrilled to learn that I am wrong in thinking that modern anti-polygamy members aren't that extreme.

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Kim Pearson's request for evidence "that it worked very well for some" expresses skepticism that it worked at all for any women (at least that's how I took it). 

May I take this as your belief that some women actually had good experiences and good marriage relationships with their husbands? I'll let Kim speak for himself, but I would be thrilled to learn that I am wrong in thinking that modern anti-polygamy members aren't that extreme.

Rongo, you have been around forever. You couldn't possibly claim to not know that women having positive experiences has been acknowledged in every discussion. 

What Kim said has no discernable relationship to what you took from it. None. Don't change people's words in fast moving threads, please. 

[Teancum]

On 12/8/2021 at 2:19 PM, bluebell said:

We don't really know why God commanded polygamy (or if He commanded it as it was practiced--probably not all the time).  I don't see how any good can come from getting into arguments over speculation or opinions that aren't supported by anything.  

Better to just say we don't know and leave it at all.  So much harm has come to the church and members from people making up their own reasons for things, no matter how much those reasons made sense to them.

Or realize  you need a lot of mental gyrations to accept it. Smacs lengthy post is full of them.  His post gives me comfort in my solid conclusion that God had absolutely nothing to do with it. If you have to go to such an effort to justify it, well, it probably is hooey.  Abrahamic test?  Oh please....

Edited December 9, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

None of those are a theological or doctrinal reason for eternal marriage involving multiple wives. Why? Why would that even be a thing? What possible holiness would adding more people to an earthly marriage make? That is what I continue to ask and has yet to be answered. The only reasons ever given at the time were to add glory to the man and you are well aware of that. That is the irony of this whole mess. All of the reasons given at the time (which is really where we need to look for answers) have been rejected. But rather than acknowledging that,  ad hoc reasons and speculations are created on the fly to keep what was a failed practice on the table. Meanwhile, we are losing women to this unnecessary nonsense. 

The restoration of all things has to be the worst, BTW, because all things weren't "restored." At all. And no one has bemoaned that or called the church false because of it. As for animal sacrifice, seriously? Do you eat meat? Or are you not aware that sacrificed meat was eaten? So your only objection could be the manner in which they were killed. Do you consider slaughterhouses more humane or something? I don't understand this.

It is simple really. It is all BS. Once you realize that you can move on.