Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, if you haven't been watching for as long as I have, I feel you don't have a leg to stand on. Sure they keep some drama somewhat, but I don't feel like it's acting. And just like in real life there is drama.

How about making your own unreal reality show thread for this stuff? 

[Peacefully]

I have my bingo card out. Waiting for the “my wife agrees with me so the rest of you women are wrong” for the win:)

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, if you haven't been watching for as long as I have, I feel you don't have a leg to stand on. Sure they keep some drama somewhat, but I don't feel like it's acting. And just like in real life there is drama.

I have talked to people who worked as crew on reality TV shows. It is ridiculous how much is scripted and pushed on the participants. It is not a documentary where they emphasize the drama. They create the drama. It is not that hard since they are dealing with the kind of people who volunteer to be on a reality show. All the emotional highs and lows are as planned or are edited to create the emotional beats that people will react to.

I prefer my fiction to know it is fiction.

[Chum]

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I have my bingo card out. Waiting for the “my wife agrees with me so the rest of you women are wrong” for the win:)

Oh dang. Where's Mike when you really need him?

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don't have records of my polygamist family but there certainly was chaos after he died. My great grandmother died earlier with young children while her house was being built on the homestead, another wife raised the children with the understanding she would receive the farmhouse. My grandmother didn't have a good word to say about her childhood, she left when she was 16. She told stories about how mean the half siblings were to her (they must have felt neglected when their home turned into the equivalent of a boarding house)  I don't think any of her family stayed with the church so I think this idea that somehow these horrible situations were making good members is probably exaggerated. My father only became active because he married an active woman. Grandma's brother somehow got control and took all the property leaving the woman who raised them high and dry. She did have a happy second marriage, thank goodness. I am very grateful and proud that my great grandfather never abandoned anyone, they hid pregnancies after the Manifesto and he spent time in prison.  

My great great grandpa had two wives. They were sisters. I read the first wife’s journal. She seemed to consider it a hard blessing. They all stayed in one house. The leadership of the Church told him he should take another wife. She reports that he came with heavy heart and told her that she was all he wanted. She talked him into it and he agreed on the condition that she choose his new wife. She did.

I wish I had a copy of that journal. This is a reminder that I need to get a permanent copy of that from my mom. Sadly my great grandfather died long before I was old enough to ask him what growing up in a polygamous household was like. I think I was about 15 when he died. Looking up the date of the Family Proclamation that sounds about right. He sent all his descendants a pocket knife with an inscription about the Family Proclamation shortly before he died. I still have it somewhere.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

How about making your own unreal reality show thread for this stuff? 

I can't start threads, dontcha know? But I'll bow out of the reality show talk.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can't believe I'm defending polygamy since it's what destroyed my testimony. I've watched Sister Wives from day one. And I disagree with most of what you're saying. There is controversy over what took place because of covid. Kody is taking it very serious, whereas the children aren't nor is the wife that left him, and her daughter had surgery for scoliosis and Kody (her dad), couldn't go support her because the surgery was in another state. He was worried about taking covid back to his wife that he mainly stays with unless when they meet up with every one it's social distancing and in an outdoor area. I think that's what the kids are mad about because they think it's a bunch of bull that they can't spend time with their siblings in a closer way, and the daughter that had surgery is ticked too that her dad didn't go with for her surgery. So I'm guessing that's it. Or I will have to check out the FB group and see for myself.

 

I have been interested in reading this book about the polygamist group they came out of.  I'm sure someone here probably has.

Women of Principle: Female Networking in Contemporary Mormon Polygyny https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195120701/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apan_glt_fabc_7F13WPSNYV207DT5MG1G

Based on the description I don't think it could be described as mansplaining.

I also saw this one at Benchmark Books a while back.

Voices in Harmony: Contemporary Women Celebrate Plural Marriage https://www.amazon.com/dp/155517499X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apan_glt_fabc_75DDPFP8RSXQ2X8ZGZ8S

And I completely enjoyed "A House Full of Females" by Ulrich.

Just curious - what kind of "splaining" is it when monogamists explain to everyone how bad polygamist marriages were?  "Monosplaining"?   Yep. 😂

 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

What's with the drive bys? Not to mention you seem to realize it but obviously haven't moved on, let alone from this thread. 

It is not a drive by.  It is an opinion. As for not moving on, what does that even mean?  And why should I?  Mormonism dominated my entire life for most of it and in some ways still does.  This is a place that is two fold for me. One it is entertainment and two I can more openly share some of my thoughts. 

And this topic deserves my scornful thoughts and a lot of criticism. I thought you might appreciate that. Apparently not.

Keep kicking against the pricks.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Teancum

[Calm]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Life would not have been as hard through normal sorts of hardships when there were two adults present to manage it. Nor were issues the same,

I definitely agree with the first, the second I am not certain there could be no issues that were similar, at least in the same way we say anyone’s life is the same as another’s when in reality no one has the identical context for any issues (can’t be since no one is physically, emotionally, and mentally identical).

But I can see that even if there are shared issues, the addition of the variables that go along with plural marriage could be so overwhelming they make it impossible to draw valid comparisons because they are too dissimilar when it comes to emotional behaviour (stuff like age at marriage, number of kids, that kind is stuff can easily be compared…but impact may be too complicated with the effects of sharing a husband, having another woman in at least one’s emotional space, etc).

Edited December 10, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Nothing is real-

Israel is real

Been there.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I have my bingo card out. Waiting for the “my wife agrees with me so the rest of you women are wrong” for the win:)

Ooh, ooh! Let me!

Both my late wife and my current wife told me that if plural marriage were re-instituted, and we were required to practice it, they would obey. Not saying they would have done so gladly -- for a start, I wouldn't do so gladly. However, this says nothing at all about whether or not the practice is wrong, in itself, or whether any woman who opposes the idea is wrong. Only that my wives would be obedient, and that because of their testimonies of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and their convictions that Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a true revelation from God.

And this is ultimately the question, not whether you, me, or someone else likes it or not. If it is a valid divine principle, by which I mean that God commands that it be practiced when it is commanded, then a believer can have no argument against it, even if he or she refuses to participate. But if one doesn't believe it's a divine principle, or doesn't believe in God at all, then one can reject or accept it on its merits or lack of same, as one wishes.

So, the only real question here is the source of DC 132. From God? Or from man? And go from there. I happen to come down on the "from God" side, as I see all the scriptural evidence in favor of it, and very little or none against it. Others will come down on the other side, for whatever reason they may have. They're entitled to their opinions, as am I.

I am just glad we're not being asked to practice it at this time in mortality. I fully expect it to be the way things will be for those who are exalted, in other words, those who inherit the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Israel is real

Been there.

 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

Gosh... we are pretty darn close to satisfying Godwin's Law with this thread.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

. I fully expect it to be the way things will be for those who are exalted, in other words, those who inherit the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

Why?

When we are perfected, at one, resurrected and ready to create worlds, will God still be testing us, requiring sacrifice for eternity?

Edited December 10, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Gosh... we are pretty darn close to satisfying Godwin's Law with this thread.

And I love the humor mixed in, it's needed!!

ETA: Just got the notice that I'm out of posts, so using this one...just one more thing about the Sister Wives reality show (sorry Juliann) The reason I like the show so much, is the family. The amount of siblings and their closeness to each other. I have 5 siblings, and we're not close at all. We play like it, and play nice nice...but rarely get together or call, or text. Maybe that's the thing I like about the show, and the wishing it were like that for myself.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Tacenda

[rongo]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

I don't think any of her family stayed with the church so I think this idea that somehow these horrible situations were making good members is probably exaggerated.

Given how many members **today** have "straight shot" faithful lineages from polygamy to the present (i.e., faithful and active, without leaving, on down through the generations), I don't think it's exaggerated for those families. The proof is in the family histories, and the results from generation to generation. Certainly, some went inactive or left the Church because of polygamy (bad home life, bad upbringing, distant father, etc.), but there is a lot of evidence in many of our lineages that dispute the notion that it was rare for "these horrible situations" to "make good members." My lineage alone (and I'm just a drop in the bucket) has Frys, Chappells, Wildes, Toones, Joneses, Hesses, and Toomers that have produced now six generations of default faithfulness. I'm not an outlier. 

I think one of the fruits of polygamy is this generational effect far down the road. Countless members can see this in their own heritage and lineage. 

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ooh, ooh! Let me!

Both my late wife and my current wife told me that if plural marriage were re-instituted, and we were required to practice it, they would obey. Not saying they would have done so gladly -- for a start, I wouldn't do so gladly. However, this says nothing at all about whether or not the practice is wrong, in itself, or whether any woman who opposes the idea is wrong. Only that my wives would be obedient, and that because of their testimonies of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and their convictions that Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a true revelation from God.

And this is ultimately the question, not whether you, me, or someone else likes it or not. If it is a valid divine principle, by which I mean that God commands that it be practiced when it is commanded, then a believer can have no argument against it, even if he or she refuses to participate. But if one doesn't believe it's a divine principle, or doesn't believe in God at all, then one can reject or accept it on its merits or lack of same, as one wishes.

So, the only real question here is the source of DC 132. From God? Or from man? And go from there. I happen to come down on the "from God" side, as I see all the scriptural evidence in favor of it, and very little or none against it. Others will come down on the other side, for whatever reason they may have. They're entitled to their opinions, as am I.

I am just glad we're not being asked to practice it at this time in mortality. I fully expect it to be the way things will be for those who are exalted, in other words, those who inherit the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

Thanks for playing;

I respect your thoughts on this. I am not convinced that it will be required in the next life and I don’t know what purpose it would serve, but I don’t spend time thinking about it. I trust Heavenly Father. 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I have my bingo card out. Waiting for the “my wife agrees with me so the rest of you women are wrong” for the win:)

Always a favorite!

Yet somehow “my husband agrees with me” is never seen by the male poster who used the “wife card” as all that relevant. 😂

[Chum]

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

My lineage alone (and I'm just a drop in the bucket) has Frys, Chappells, Wildes, Toones, Joneses, Hesses, and Toomers that have produced now six generations of default faithfulness. I'm not an outlier. 

I think one of the fruits of polygamy is this generational effect far down the road. Countless members can see this in their own heritage and lineage. 

This experience seems to make the case for 'make your wife miserable today to get faithful progeny later'.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

This experience seems to make the case for 'make your wife miserable today to get faithful progeny later'.

Only if you assume that all women were miserable. I think this assumption is axiomatic among polygamy critics. 

I think there is a lot of projecting and cherry-picking on the part of both sides of this. Several people here have raised the interesting question of what a detailed, academic comparison of journal material would yield. I don't think that particular question has been studied, and I think there would be a lot of projecting and cherry-picking on both sides as to sources and interpretation. I think critics would argue that culture at the time led to reticence in journal entries, so even "lack of evidence" wouldn't necessarily be admitted to be "evidence of absence." On the other hand, I don't think there would be very many entries that leave nothing to interpretation ("I'm so happy! You would think polygamy would make me miserable, and my husband wouldn't have much contact with the children, but it hasn't been that way at all! It's better than I ever dared to dream it would be!"). 

Like with most things, I think we would be back to "a man, he hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon)

ETA: Setting aside the question of relative misery for women, children, and families under polygamy as a separate question, I do think the generational results of it are remarkable (in a good way), overall. I think the reverberating effect down through the generations bears that out. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by rongo

[smac97]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

Quote

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? 

Juliann, I have been intemperate in some of my comments, and for that I apologize and retract them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

49 minutes ago, rongo said:

Only if you assume that all women were miserable.

'All' is rarely a good fit for human anything, nevertheless when considering matters of the faithful.

[Chum]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think there is a lot of projecting and cherry-picking on the part of both sides of this.

Of course. It's a matter of faith.

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

Setting aside the question of relative misery for women, children, and families under polygamy as a separate question, I do think the generational results of it are remarkable (in a good way), overall. I think the reverberating effect down through the generations bears that out. 

I'd argue that setting that aside is an act of cherry-picking - especially when that Q is sort of the point.

I'm personally agnostic over polygamy, as I am with line marriages and other boutique unions. My overriding concern is with the authentic happiness of the folks involved - primarily the sisters and their children.

[CV75]

Given that most baptized people do not stay active, it is not surprising (to me) that a lot of members would not attain God's intended blessings from it, or behave in a way that blocked its intended blessings for themselves and others, for any number of reasons.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I'd argue that setting that aside is an act of cherry-picking - especially when that Q is sort of the point.

I don't mean setting aside the question permanently (never considering or dealing with it), just that the generational success of polygamy many generations hence is something that should be considered, too. It's not like the alleged universal misery of the participants is the only factor that can ever be considered --- especially in light of the Book of Mormon's stated purpose for polygamy (to raise up seed).