Distinct polygamy concerns

[Rain]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am sure Joseph preferred to be more open with everyone. The problem was if he was more open, he would not get more compassion or understanding.  It would be hard to live in a situation where if you told the truth all the time that the consequences for it was usually different degrees of negativity.  I personally do believe in the concept if you want to be told the truth on anything, you have to mature enough to handle that truth and respond to it in a reasonable way.  If the response is getting stones, figuratively and literally thrown, that provides little incentive to tell the truth in the future. 

There are at least two reccomend questions that make it difficult to accept the lying.  

"1. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

If Joseph was living polygamy, but somehow teaching it was against our doctrines, teachings etc that will make it very hard for people to deal with his lying.

2. Trying to be honest in all we do.

There are some real reasons that people struggle with the lying.

But on top of that, lying to your wife about taking on another wife goes beyond lying to keep safe.  It hits at the very core of fidelity. 

So while you are right that we shouldn't judge him we also shouldn't judge others that find this very difficult.  This not only has emotional implications for women in marriage it also has eternal implications for people who are trying to understand what God wants of them.  And then tie that all up with trying to figure out what is true and what isn't.   

i think very few people are actually spending time on judging Joseph here.  That is a surface issue.  What they are really dealing with is what they should believe to have eternal life and how they face infidelity in their own lives.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Since the manifesto was the step put forward to end plural marriage do you think plural marriage was a mistake?

I think the way it was implemented and happened within some of the church was a mistake.  I think the way it ended (or rather, didn't end when they said it did) was a mistake.  I can't go as far as to say that I know the principle itself is always a mistake/wrong in every context, but in general yes, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that it is a mistake in general. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by pogi

[teddyaware]

On 7/9/2022 at 4:27 AM, Duncan said:

 

"are likely"

"very often"

you don't sound too confident. 

How much does it bother you that God doesn't need you to judge others? God doesn't need you, he knows how judge others righteously

I’m trying to be polite. And who can doubt that if I were to bare down in pure testimony, as the Book of Mormon expression goes,  you’d condemn - or mock - that too?

Edited July 11, 2022 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’m trying to be polite. And who can doubt that if I were to bare down in pure testimony, as the Book of Mormon expression goes,  you’d condemn - or mock - that too?

  I can easily do the same to you and your deceptions

[MustardSeed]

10 hours ago, Nofear said:

As much as I yearn to be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, I really don't view it as a "carrot" or a "reward" but simply the kind of place I want to be in as the Celestial Kingdom also happens to be the place that offers maximal felicity and glory for its inhabitants. The other kingdoms are good too. We will largely choose* the kingdom we wish to inherit by being willing to live in the manner that is necessary for that kingdom.
"For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory." D&C 88:22-23

If the arrangements/requirements to abide a certain kingdom are not to our liking, then we don't have to go there. Again, a lot of it is up to us. God will force no one to "heaven".
"For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift." D&C 88:33

 

* There is, of course, some other things that go into it. For example we have to demonstrate ability to live that law, covenant to do so, and receive the necessary sanctification.

You make my point.  I have no plans to attend the celestial kingdom under the circumstance- If not for this ridiculous and unnecessary concept, you would see me there. Isn’t that unfortunate? Just the fact that something That appears so heinous to your average human being is a qualifier for the celestial kingdom seems completely outrageous to me. Take anything else that the average human considers to be completely immoral and apply it to this principle and maybe it will make more sense. 
In my opinion, many males who have been exposed to this idea of polygamy their whole lives simply cannot fathom the position of being female and being told that this is a requirement for heaven, and how that makes us feel. I don’t know Manos’ situation but I appreciate his expressed empathy.  It quiets me and calms me in these conversations. 

[Nofear]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You make my point.  I have no plans to attend the celestial kingdom under the circumstance- If not for this ridiculous and unnecessary concept, you would see me there. Isn’t that unfortunate? Just the fact that something That appears so heinous to your average human being is a qualifier for the celestial kingdom seems completely outrageous to me. Take anything else that the average human considers to be completely immoral and apply it to this principle and maybe it will make more sense. 
In my opinion, many males who have been exposed to this idea of polygamy their whole lives simply cannot fathom the position of being female and being told that this is a requirement for heaven, and how that makes us feel. I don’t know Manos’ situation but I appreciate his expressed empathy.  It quiets me and calms me in these conversations. 

Despite early rhetoric by church leaders, one is not required to believe in polygamy to have full fellowship in the Church or enjoy the full blessings that our covenant keeping can bring. I am personally of the opinion that polygamous marriages are not part of celestial society. There is a lot we don't know and I could possibly see that there may be some scenarios where they might exist in a transient form as celestial society is organized, but I do not see them as the end state for those who would become participants in the work our Heavenly Parents do. I also consider myself quite orthodox*.

* I do have some unorthodox opinions, mostly because some of our culturally transmitted ideas are... stupid. But those unorthodox opinions are not central or core to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in any way.

[teddyaware]

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You make my point.  I have no plans to attend the celestial kingdom under the circumstance- If not for this ridiculous and unnecessary concept, you would see me there. Isn’t that unfortunate? Just the fact that something That appears so heinous to your average human being is a qualifier for the celestial kingdom seems completely outrageous to me. Take anything else that the average human considers to be completely immoral and apply it to this principle and maybe it will make more sense. 
In my opinion, many males who have been exposed to this idea of polygamy their whole lives simply cannot fathom the position of being female and being told that this is a requirement for heaven, and how that makes us feel. I don’t know Manos’ situation but I appreciate his expressed empathy.  It quiets me and calms me in these conversations. 

Again, another carnal view of one of the “strong meat” (difficult to digest) doctrines of the kingdom of God that presumes the practice of plural marriage is evil because the degree of spiritual enlightenment they possess only allows them to accept the easy to digest baby’s milk doctrines of the gospel.

I’ve extensively read what the early leaders of the Church — including several Church Presidents — had to say about the divinely sanctioned practice of plural marriage and each one of them boldly, and with great reasoning power and eloquence. testified that it was a holy and spiritually empowering principle.

Why are you more apt to accept the opinions of any nonmember Tom, Richard and Mary on the practice of plural marriage rather than rely on the testimonies of the polygamous prophets, seers and revelators who steadfastly stood at the helm of the restored Church for half a century? 

Edited July 11, 2022 by teddyaware

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Again, another carnal view of one of the “strong meat” (difficult to digest) doctrines of the kingdom of God that presumes the practice of plural marriage is evil because the degree of spiritual enlightenment they possess only allows them to accept the easy to digest baby’s milk doctrines of the gospel.

I’ve extensively read what the early leaders of the Church — including several Church Presidents — had to say about the divinely sanctioned practice of plural marriage and each one of them boldly, and with great reasoning power and eloquence. testified that it was a holy and spiritually empowering principle.

Why are you more apt to accept the opinions of any nonmember Tom, Richard and Mary on the practice of plural marriage rather than rely on the testimonies of the polygamous prophets, seers and revelators who steadfastly stood at the helm of the restored Church for half a century? 

"We are but human, and it's hard to wrap our brains around this thing.  I can have empathy for your feelings, as I can't imagine sharing my spouse with anyone.  Im sorry for how hard this is for you, who have dedicated your life to the gospel."

FTFY.  If you're going to come in with such a judgmental stance in your first sentence directing the word CARNAL at me, you've lost me.  True or not, it is alienating.  

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Again, another carnal view of one of the “strong meat” (difficult to digest) doctrines of the kingdom of God that presumes the practice of plural marriage is evil because the degree of spiritual enlightenment they possess only allows them to accept the easy to digest baby’s milk doctrines of the gospel.

I’ve extensively read what the early leaders of the Church — including several Church Presidents — had to say about the divinely sanctioned practice of plural marriage and each one of them boldly, and with great reasoning power and eloquence. testified that it was a holy and spiritually empowering principle.

Why are you more apt to accept the opinions of any nonmember Tom, Richard and Mary on the practice of plural marriage rather than rely on the testimonies of the polygamous prophets, seers and revelators who steadfastly stood at the helm of the restored Church for half a century? 

Why are you assuming she is accepting the opinions of anyone? Because it differs from the testimonies of men, though holy, you have accepted?

Perhaps where it comes from are from things the Spirit has enlightened her about.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Again, another carnal view of one of the “strong meat” (difficult to digest) doctrines of the kingdom of God that presumes the practice of plural marriage is evil because the degree of spiritual enlightenment they possess only allows them to accept the easy to digest baby’s milk doctrines of the gospel.

I’ve extensively read what the early leaders of the Church — including several Church Presidents — had to say about the divinely sanctioned practice of plural marriage and each one of them boldly, and with great reasoning power and eloquence. testified that it was a holy and spiritually empowering principle.

Why are you more apt to accept the opinions of any nonmember Tom, Richard and Mary on the practice of plural marriage rather than rely on the testimonies of the polygamous prophets, seers and revelators who steadfastly stood at the helm of the restored Church for half a century? 

If you truly want us to believe that you are so much more spiritually enlightened than the rest of us who have a hard time with this issue, it would be more convincing if you weren't so consistently pious and sanctimonious towards those who are faithful and doing their best to reconcile difficult issues.   You never walked in Emma's shoes.  To not be able to empathize with her struggles and the difficulty in accepting this principle is something disturbing to me.  To expect fidelity from your spouse is not too much to ask.  

I just finished watching Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey, it is kind of creepy how much you sound just like the blind fundamentalists who are so thoroughly convinced of their superior spiritual enlightenment.  It is their level of spiritual enlightenment that allows them to accept this principle, right?

Edited July 11, 2022 by pogi

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m trying to be polite

Wow. I wonder what your not trying to be polite might look like. 🙄

[Nofear]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Wow. I wonder what your not trying to be polite might look like. 🙄

Just read my posts. I'm downright viscous vicious  at times.

 

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Just read my posts. I'm downright viscous vicious  at times.

 

I was not posting to you.

[Nofear]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I was not posting to you.

(I know. I was just trying to be a little light hearted.)

[juliann]

I think the most important thing for any man to do when speaking to a group of women about this is to first acknowledge that polygamy (as practiced) by definition places women in an inferior position and that anecdotal stories don't change the fundamental problem in any situation that (in the words of Brian Hales) expands men's emotional and sexual opportunites while reducing them for women. 

Second, there should never be any worry despite noisy voices trying to push the idea. To do that, they need to produce any modern prophet confirming polygamy doctrine (it has been routinely referred to as a "practice"). There isn't one, I know because I have been met with silence everytime I ask for over a decade.

Women need to be able to counter the thoughtless and uncaring voices. They need to know that they are not required to put "dead" prophets over the modern living ones, that are always used, and anyone doing that is out of line (there is an authoritative quote on this.) 

Third, most never put together that women are eventually sealed to all of their spouses, with the same sealing ordinance that men use, so the idea that we still believe in polygamy because of men's live sealings is bogus. 

Once the table is cleared, allowing defenses to be laid aside, then there can be a discussion of historical polygamy. Women need to know they are not apostates for not accepting polygamy in the afterlife, there is no proof for it whatsoever....it is considered speculation by the Brethren, and that they never need to defend that it placed women in a subordinate position, that is self-evident.

Also, there is endless question begging going on until someone can answer what the point of it is. JS never did, all we have are the 19th century reasons which have all been discarded and even sound silly. 

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I think the most important thing for any man to do when speaking to a group of women about this is to first acknowledge that polygamy (as practiced) by definition places women in an inferior position and that anecdotal stories don't change the fundamental problem in any situation that (in the words of Brian Hales) expands men's emotional and sexual opportunites while reducing them for women. 

Second, there should never be any worry despite noisy voices trying to push the idea. To do that, they need to produce any modern prophet confirming polygamy doctrine (it has been routinely referred to as a "practice"). There isn't one, I know because I have been met with silence everytime I ask for over a decade.

Women need to be able to counter the thoughtless and uncaring voices. They need to know that they are not required to put "dead" prophets over the modern living ones, that are always used, and anyone doing that is out of line (there is an authoritative quote on this.) 

Third, most never put together that women are eventually sealed to all of their spouses, with the same sealing ordinance that men use, so the idea that we still believe in polygamy because of men's live sealings is bogus. 

Once the table is cleared, allowing defenses to be laid aside, then there can be a discussion of historical polygamy. Women need to know they are not apostates for not accepting polygamy in the afterlife, there is no proof for it whatsoever....it is considered speculation by the Brethren, and that they never need to defend that it placed women in a subordinate position, that is self-evident.

Also, there is endless question begging going on until someone can answer what the point of it is. JS never did, all we have are the 19th century reasons which have all been discarded and even sound silly. 

 

 

Your first paragraph brings to my mind the thought that such inequality is ultimately overcome by finding the divine emotional and sexual boundaries within oneself (alone or as part of a couple) or better, jointly between the couple. Because this can be done without marriage or plural marriage, perhaps the purpose of the practice may well have been one route, in a particular time and place, to discover and master these boundaries as part of the requisite sacrifice of all things to God, to fit us for His presence (yes, a tall order). In both cases, the kingdom is not of this world, but they allow for two lenses through which to view the historical practice.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Your first paragraph brings to my mind the thought that such inequality is ultimately overcome by finding the divine emotional and sexual boundaries within oneself (alone or as part of a couple) or better, jointly between the couple. Because this can be done without marriage or plural marriage, perhaps the purpose of the practice may well have been one route, in a particular time and place, to discover and master these boundaries as part of the requisite sacrifice of all things to God, to fit us for His presence (yes, a tall order). In both cases, the kingdom is not of this world, but they allow for two lenses through which to view the historical practice.

You couldn’t have given a better tone deaf example of why so many women are angry about being told by men they can get over polygamy. 
 

It was the women doing most of the sacrificing, you know, the women who are already “more spiritual” to provide the men with lots of women in the CK?   

[webbles]

20 hours ago, Nofear said:

This article has some more in depth discussion on it: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/assessing-the-criticisms-of-early-age-latter-day-saint-marriages/

Thanks.  I remember reading that article.  It gets its data from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002115/ which is getting its data from IPUMS.  It calculates the mean age of marriage by using a statistical value called "Singulate Mean Age at Marriage" (SMAM).

I was curious if I could calculate the age at marriage using a different method.  The IPUMS has calculated various relationship connections and added them to the data.  This includes spouse, mother, father, child, etc.  Since it provides the "eldest child", I thought about getting all of the married women (those where IPUMS has calculated a spouse age) along with their eldest child age and then subtracting the two to calculate the marriage age.  To prevent the eldest child from being the second or third child, I limited the age of the women to 35 and the children to 0-10.  After running those numbers, I got marriage age pretty close to what the SMAM calculated.  Mine was a tiny bit lower but that is probably because I'm not looking at women over the age of 35.

I then broke up the women into 2 year cohorts and calculated the percentage of each cohort.  I did this for 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, and 1900 and compared each of the regions (Midwest, Northeast, South, and West).  I got a different result than what the paper showed.  Only in 1850 did the West have a lot more women marrying under the age 18.  From 1860 on, the South had more women marrying under the age of 18.

 

I was also curious about the age difference between women under the age of 20 and their husbands.  I limited it to just husbands that were at least 20 years older.  After breaking it down by region, the West came out with the highest percentage of these types of marriages for all years.  The South was next but it was a distant 2nd place.  Since the West includes more than just Utah, I decided to break it down by state and see if all states/territories were like that.  Turns out that California, Nevada, and Montana were the major offenders.  Utah itself was actually always near the bottom.

So, Utah (or the West) were definitely different from the Northeast, but when you look at the South (and even the Midwest), Utah wasn't really that much different.  The percentage of marriages with young women was basically inline with the South (and even less than the South) and the percentage of marriages with large age gaps wasn't that much different from the South and Midwest.

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

No excuses.  No justification.  No victim blaming.  We can't suggest that it was Emma's fault for not being more compassionate and understanding when Joseph comes to her about marrying and sleeping around with dozens of other women and teenagers, including hired help in the home.  Joseph lied to his wife in sleeping with/marrying other women behind her back.  That is not ok.   If we want other people to take us seriously, we have to call things out and stop trying to white wash our very human history.  The optics are terrible when you try to excuse such things and blame the victim. 

Is that how you raise your kids?   

"Principle Skinner, my son Ferris prefers to tell the truth about his sluffing school, but whenever he is honest he just gets no compassion and understanding...  So, if you want him to tell you the truth on anything, then you have to be more mature and give support and understanding when he fakes sick.  So, it is really your fault that my child is not honest."

It sounds horrific even in the context of sluffing school - which is like a gnat compared to the camel of what Joseph did to Emma. 

 

First, I was speaking general terms.  I did not mention Emma at all.  Second, If Joseph was having sex behind Emma back, yes that would be wrong.  I however don't believe he was.  I have not seen evidence he was.   Sexless marriages exist so I don't assume that if someone is married, they are having sex.   But I am open to seeing evidence otherwise that does not hang on some like hearsay

Edited July 12, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[jcake]

On 7/7/2022 at 10:32 AM, bluebell said:

I think it was a sacrifice for both, but if you go off of the number of women who are willing to leave the church or stay away from the temple over the idea of having to practice it or that God ever asked women to do so, and compare it to the number of men who are willing to do that for the same reasons, it seems to be a much (much) larger concern for women than for men in general.  

That coupled with the few journals I have read from women in the past who were committed to the practice but lived most of their lives alone with their children, plus what I've seen of it as it's been practiced by other offshoots in our day by those who practice it personally, do lead me to believe that the practice is usually harder on women than men.  (This was cemented to me when watching a polygamous relationship between a man and his four wives, where he was not at all getting along with one wife.  He had three other wives to meet his emotional, mental, and physical needs and she had no one.) 

In general, polygamy is a multiplication for men but a division for women.  Men get more of something and women get less.  For some women getting less of their husband to emotionally connect with, or replacing that spousal connection with a sister connection, might be right up their personal alley.  And for some men, getting more wives to emotionally connect with and more sexual partners and more sexual intimacy might be a huge trial. 

But in general, I think that a life with more intimacy and emotional connection with a spouse is seen as better than a life with less intimacy and emotional connection with a spouse.

 

 

This post addresses the concerns that most women I know, have expressed.  The loneliness of women in polygamous marriages was heart wrenching.  Diaries of these sisters note this.  Loneliness is one of the most difficult things people experience.  Men speaking about polygamy rarely even address this, the most challenging aspect of polygamy, and so their words don't do much to relieve women's worries. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by jcake
puncuation correction

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, jcake said:

This post addresses the concerns that most women I know, have expressed.  The loneliness of women in polygamous marriages was heart wrenching.  Diaries of these sisters note this.  Loneliness is one of the most difficult things people experience.  Men speaking about polygamy rarely even address this, the most challenging aspect of polygamy and so their words don't do much to relieve women's worries. 

I am sure that was a problem in polygamy. BUT did polygamy cause that?  99.9% of women who are feeling lonely today are not in polygamist relationships.   Monogamy clearly has not fixed the problem.

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

First, I was speaking general terms.  I did not mention Emma at all.  Second, If Joseph was having sex behind Emma back, yes that would be wrong.  I however don't believe he was.  I have not seen evidence he was.   Sexless marriages exist so I don't assume that if someone is married, they are having sex.   But I am open to seeing evidence otherwise that does not hang on some like hearsay

So are you saying it was ok to have a sexless marriage behind her back? Because the fact that there sexless marriages should tell you that for some couples they are much more concerned with the other things behind her back than sex. While physical intimacy is important that would be no more wrong behind my back than the other ways I connect with my husband being done behind my back by my husband.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

So are you saying it was ok to have a sexless marriage behind her back? Because the fact that there sexless marriages should tell you that for some couples they are much more concerned with the other things behind her back than sex. While physical intimacy is important that would be no more wrong behind my back than the other ways I connect with my husband being done behind my back by my husband.

 

I think a sexless marriage would be better than one with sex for multiple reasons.  For some people, that might be fine. Depends on the specifics of what the marriage was all about.  It might just be a more of transactional type thing.  How you connect with your husband might be different than how others interact with their spouse.  Not everyone thinks like you are I.  I don't know why Joseph just did not divorce Emma first if she was not happy about the idea of polygamy.    Perhaps he did not think it was option but it would have saved a lot of grief in the long run for both of them. 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Thanks.  I remember reading that article.  It gets its data from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002115/ which is getting its data from IPUMS.  It calculates the mean age of marriage by using a statistical value called "Singulate Mean Age at Marriage" (SMAM).

I was curious if I could calculate the age at marriage using a different method.  The IPUMS has calculated various relationship connections and added them to the data.  This includes spouse, mother, father, child, etc.  Since it provides the "eldest child", I thought about getting all of the married women (those where IPUMS has calculated a spouse age) along with their eldest child age and then subtracting the two to calculate the marriage age.  To prevent the eldest child from being the second or third child, I limited the age of the women to 35 and the children to 0-10.  After running those numbers, I got marriage age pretty close to what the SMAM calculated.  Mine was a tiny bit lower but that is probably because I'm not looking at women over the age of 35.

I then broke up the women into 2 year cohorts and calculated the percentage of each cohort.  I did this for 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, and 1900 and compared each of the regions (Midwest, Northeast, South, and West).  I got a different result than what the paper showed.  Only in 1850 did the West have a lot more women marrying under the age 18.  From 1860 on, the South had more women marrying under the age of 18.

 

I was also curious about the age difference between women under the age of 20 and their husbands.  I limited it to just husbands that were at least 20 years older.  After breaking it down by region, the West came out with the highest percentage of these types of marriages for all years.  The South was next but it was a distant 2nd place.  Since the West includes more than just Utah, I decided to break it down by state and see if all states/territories were like that.  Turns out that California, Nevada, and Montana were the major offenders.  Utah itself was actually always near the bottom.

So, Utah (or the West) were definitely different from the Northeast, but when you look at the South (and even the Midwest), Utah wasn't really that much different.  The percentage of marriages with young women was basically inline with the South (and even less than the South) and the percentage of marriages with large age gaps wasn't that much different from the South and Midwest.

You should publish your analysis somewhere, either formally in a paper or informally as a blog post or something (heck, Hales may be willing to host it) so that it can be referenced easily.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

First, I was speaking general terms.  I did not mention Emma at all.  Second, If Joseph was having sex behind Emma back, yes that would be wrong.  I however don't believe he was.  I have not seen evidence he was.   Sexless marriages exist so I don't assume that if someone is married, they are having sex.   But I am open to seeing evidence otherwise that does not hang on some like hearsay

It is pretty well established that JS had sex with his wives.  Even Bushman agrees with this.

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/plural-marriages-sexual/#EvidencesofSexualRelations