Distinct polygamy concerns

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am not arguing from historical examples but just general application.  If a rich man, regardless of whom they are or when they live, has more than one wife, it would not necessarily be a problem of resources for him.   I understood your argument but just pointed out that it not true in all cases. 

Why in the world do you think that needs to be said again? What exactly do you think "only rich men could provide for additional wives" means if not what you just reiterated? Why are you taking up space repeating this? 

[carbon dioxide]

Rongo, I think there is enough evidence in this tread to decline the invitation to speak to the Relief Society on this subject.   I see far more downside than upside.   The saying is true, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and when it comes to polygamy, its is worse than traveling through a minefield in Ukraine.   I avoid even the subject with my wife.   In the few times it has come up, it does not go well and I just move away from the subject as quickly as possible.

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Rongo, I think there is enough evidence in this tread to decline the invitation to speak to the Relief Society on this subject.   I see far more downside than upside.   The saying is true, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and when it comes to polygamy, its is worse than traveling through a minefield in Ukraine.   I avoid even the subject with my wife.   In the few times it has come up, it does not go well and I just move away from the subject as quickly as possible.

There is a downside to helping women set aside fears about what they have been fed about polygamy? Just so you know saying men are from Mars, women are from Venus is about as sexist as it gets. It only goes to prove that polygamy has always been presented through male eyes and the minute that is challenged, a lot of men fall apart if they can't get women's experiences with it put back on the shelf. 

[Danzo]

23 hours ago, rongo said:

We moved into a new ward in April, in an area where we don't have connections. I was asked by the new Relief Society president (called two weeks ago) to address the Relief Society sisters about polygamy, because of concerns that have been expressed that are keeping some sisters away from church or tempting them to formally leave the church. 

What specific concerns with polygamy am I missing in preparing for this? I have . . .

1. Polygamy, period (concern about it being of God, ever, under any circumstances)

2. Caving to political pressure in ending it (concern that the Church followed man and not God)

3. Lying to hide and cover up polygamy (discomfort with lying under any circumstances)

4. Need for the Second Manifesto (1890 didn’t end it outright).

5. Polyandry (Joseph Smith being sealed to other men's wives)

6. Joseph Smith’s teenage wives (concerns about his sealings to women under 18)

7. Polygamy today via sealings to additional spouses (concerns that polygamy will be part of the hereafter, as denoted by sealings to multiple spouses).

7a) Incongruity/disparity between men and women additional sealings. 

8. Modern-day offshoots = 19th Century Mormon polygamy (concerns that polygamy among modern-day offshoots illustrates how it functioned from the 1840s to the early 20th century). 

9. Bad and demonstrably incorrect folk explanations (e.g., more women than men, etc.). 

10. Required for exaltation? Doctrinal shift on this?

---

Thanks in advance for any subtopics under this heading that I'm overlooking!

 

One of the big problems in this forum and in general is the strong temptation to make a Judgement.

"Polygamy Good"

"Polygamy Bad"

then you get to "if you think Polygamy Good, You bad person"

Or "if you think Polygamy bad, You bad person"

 

The truth is, we don't have to, and we shouldn't be in the business of judging our ancestors.  They are all dead, they really don't care what our judgment is. What we can do, is study and learn about the practice, not from silly internet forums but from the people who lived it.  If you give a lesson about it, it should be to help people learn how it really worked for real people.  Their struggles with it. Their thoughts about it.  the struggles when it started, the struggles when it was ended.   Judgement kills learning. Why should I learn about something if I already know it is good (or bad).  If I am studying something to learn if it was good or bad then I can stop once I have made my judgement.  After the Judgment is made, any further study is just to find ammunition to support my judgement. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Danzo

[Buckeye]

55 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Much like obituaries, many don't tell the whole story.

sometimes they do ….
 

https://www.jacksonville.com/obituaries/pfla0245589?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[smac97]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Quote

I think Pres. Hinckley may have misspoken when he indicated to Larry King that "between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in {polygamy}." 

Apparently scholarship posits that "{t}he extent of the practice of polygamy in the Latter-day Saint community was virtually impossible to calculate" in the late 19th century, that "{m}odern scholars have arrived at various estimates" and "'studies of individual {19th-century} communities show a wide variation in the incidence of plurality,'" but that "'perhaps the best estimates of the number of polygamous families among late-nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints range between 20 and 30 percent.'"

And here is the perfect example of the erasure of women in research that I referred to earlier.

I don't follow.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

A count of families means nothing when it comes to numbers.  It needs to be a count of people within that family, especially wives.

I agree that a more accurate figure would be the percentage of adult members of the Church who participated in polygamous unions (and perhaps broken down even further by gender).  But it seems that the historical data is such that figuring this out is "virtually impossible."

2 hours ago, juliann said:

The percentages will change depending on what they count. People were in and out of marriages. Do children in the women's families count in the estimate of who participated? That would greatly expand numbers. If someone was in a polygamist marriage for a couple of years but then married monogamously for the rest of their lives, does that count? What about those like my great grandfather who briefly had two wives but one died?

All very good questions.  And pretty good reasons to not jump to the "Erasure of Women" thing as well.

We just don't have the data.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Quote

Yes, there is.  D&C 132.  Jacob 2.  The Bible.  We must "square" our perceptions with these authorities.

Unfortunately, it rarely happens.

I agree.  But it nonetheless bears attention and emphasis.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

That is why most people do not know that 132 allows for polyandry.

Not sure about that.  The verdict appears to be iffy-to-no:

Polygamy/Polyandry Concerns & Questions

Does D&C 132 support Polyandry?

D&c 132 References For Living Polyandry

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Quote

Many of the staunchest supporters of polygamy in the 19th century were . . . 19th-century women in polygamous relationships.

Again, polygamy was a difficult and harmful practice for some.  For others, it worked quite well.

This has gotten to the point where it is intellectually dishonest.

Let's see.  Juliann is attacking the honesty of someone whose viewpoint does not align with hers.  Must be a day ending in "y."

Meanwhile, let's take a look at this (emphases added):

Quote

Tarrying in the sphere of personal history analysis, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, in A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women’s Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835-1870 (2017), highlights the everyday lives of nineteenth century plural wives, but includes accounts of the husbands. Through a vast compilation of diaries, letters, journals, minutebooks, quilts, scrapbooks and other common material, Ulrich seeks to answer how the enfranchisement of women in Utah was a product of their peculiar marital arrangements and details how the women advocated for both suffrage and polygamy. By emphasizing the experimentation of plural marriage, Ulrich exposes the paradox of polygamy as both a liberating force and a deeply troubling experience. In the thick of it are human stories of a people drawn to a new Christian religion that could only have succeeded but for the women.  “Mormonism, like other religious movements, flourished because it attracted strong women.”
...
Nonetheless, despite their best efforts to publicly defend the Principle, it is human nature to remember pleasant experiences and to forget the unpleasant. Historian Richard Van Wagoner made this observation when studying the first-hand accounts of polygamists and their plural wives. “Contemporary diaries and letter accounts of polygamous relationships generally present a less-than glowing picture of polygamy,” while “positive testimonials are most often seen in public or retrospective accounts.” The polygamous wives in Harline’s study wrote in the moment and left an undiluted history that, at times, belies the image of the staunch advocates that were visible to the public eye. 

The great majority believed in the idea, but what they said and did without the walls of their own homes often betrayed the inner feelings of their heart. Plural wives across the social and economic spectrum extended their strongest endorsement in public while disparaging the practice in private. Phoebe Woodruff, first wife of President Wilford Woodruff, author of the 1890 Manifesto, told a close friend, “I loathe the unclean thing with all the strength of my nature.”187 Zina Young, wife of Brigham Young, comforted a young, struggling polygamous wife, reassuring her that her feelings were not her fault and that the “system” was to blame. The daughter of Brigham Young’s right-hand man, Jebediah M. Grant, notably remarked, “Polygamy is alright when properly carried out…on a shovel!”  Such accounts unveil a complicated position of plural wives and portray them as duplicitous figures that freely championed a position they could not come to terms with in their personal lives.
...
The freedom to practice in the Rocky Mountains yielded varied marital behaviors among the members who entered into it, the great majority of which did not fit the popular old-man-teenage-bride stereotype. Far from a one-size-fits all system, the institution of marriage among the early Saints fulfilled different purposes; a union for “time” or for “eternity” or for both. The system’s strongest public advocates guarded conflicted feelings in private and retrospective accounts diverged from cotemporary personal writings while what was left unsaid is just as valuable as the written history.
...
The literature, most especially in recent decades, concedes that the Principle was accepted as a higher, holier law, but, in the words of Kimball Young, “was neither the horrible system pictured by anti-Mormons nor the marital bed of roses alleged by Church officials.”  In truth, it fell somewhere in the middle and was never fully embraced nor accepted by the Church general membership. 
...
{T}here was a steady decline in plural marriage during its lifespan. Yet, perhaps the greatest contributing factor to its unpopularity is the difficult experience of the plural wives. The women in the Woman’s Exponent staunchly defended plural marriage, but the nature of their arguments and their reasoning shifted dramatically...
...
Throughout the archives of the Woman’s Exponent and in the Journal of Discourses, as well as in other personal documents, there exists evidence of a blanket rearrangement in the community’s underlying arguments for the Principle.
...
The women centered their defenses around these key components and were cognizant of their negative image in the court of public opinion. When federal opposition intensified in the 1880s, the “why” of their positions changed to reflect a community grappling with not only the defense of a single tenet but for their entire religion. 
...
Belinda Pratt spoke of plural marriage’s natural elimination of prostitution from those nations who lived it. “A nation, organized under the law of the gospel, or in other words, the law of Abraham, and the patriarchs, would have no institutions tending to licentiousness; no adulteries, fornications, etc., would be tolerated. No houses, no institutions would exist for traffic in shame, or in the life blood of our fair daughters.”  Those at the Exponent wrote of the independence and encouragement for “cultivation and development” offered to all women of Utah, including plural wives, “who, if they become wives in families where plural marriage exists, do so understandingly, and of their own free will, and of their own free will they could dissolve the bonds so accepted if they felt disposed.”
...
The arguments from Latter-day Saint women navigated the same course set by their ecclesiastical leaders. In the beginning, they spoke of both the secular and doctrinal elements of plural marriage: a guard against prostitution, the means of raising up seed and building the kingdom of God, a system that fostered female independence, and a necessary ordinance for eternal salvation. By the end and like their male counterparts, the women centered their discourses on polygamy around their rights as citizens of the United States, a comparison between their experience and that of the early American colonists and a defense of their entire religion. The vernacular shifted from a promotion of the Principle to a defense of their community and constitutional freedoms and from where they sat, it never had ever really been about plural marriage. 
...
Publicly, plural wives were the most avid advocates and took umbrage at the popular perception of them as a docile, uneducated and suppressed minority. That they felt indignant about their public image is evidenced by an article published in July of 1883.

Quote

It seems a very common thing with people unacquainted with the facts to say, it is the ignorance of “Mormon” women that “keeps them in bondage,” that “makes them submit to plural marriage;” when in truth the very contrary is the case. It is because of the intelligence they possess on subjects connected with  their existence here and hereafter, as well as that of their posterity and kindred, the hopes entertained, and the actual knowledge concerning the future that causes them to embrace a doctrine so unpopular and so objectionable in the eyes of the world.

 

It is fairly inconsistent for you to say, in essence, "Listen to the 19th-century women who participated in polygamy, but only when they said things that accord with the personal opinions of Juliann in 2022."

2 hours ago, juliann said:

You know darn well that those staunch public defenders were writing private journals that were anything but happy.

So what?  Are you implying that they were being duplicitous?  That whenever they wrote something you don't like, they must have been lying?  That whether polygamy was divinely mandated depends on whether it made those who practiced it "happy?"

What in the world are you saying here?

There are all sorts of things that I will advocate for and defend, regardless of whether such things make me "happy." 

One example that comes to mind: Church discipline.  I have been involved in many, many membership councils, most of which were decidedly unpleasant.  Unpleasant, but necessary.  Unpleasant, but in accordance with scriptural mandates.  

Similarly, I have spent years of my life serving in callings in the Church that required me to spend large amounts of time away from my family, from my job, from personal time, etc.  Fair portions of the time spent fulfilling these callings involved me attending meetings that were not particularly interesting, often inefficient in terms of the amount of time spent, and so on.  And while there were certainly times and moments when fulfilling these callings was personally gratifying, uplifting, and spiritually edifying, much of my time and effort were spent with no particular thought of my "happiness."  And yet I would certainly defend both the Church and the overall necessity of accepting and magnifying callings as a component of discipleship.

I reject the notion that the divinity or rightness of a thing can or ought to be gauged by whether it makes me, a bystander living in 2022, "happy" in a particular moment.

I spent some years in my younger years serving in the military.  Basic training was pretty unpleasant.  I spent twelve months working my tail off learning Russian, and an additional four months after than getting advanced training, and years after than attending drills and training sessions.  Substantial portions of my experience were boring, involved a lot of wasted time and resources, and otherwise were not particularly conducive to making me "happy."  And yet overall I am glad that I put on the uniform, took the oath, and contributed to my country's defense.

I greatly value the United States legal system.  And though as a participant I am well aware of its flaws and shortcomings, I am quite willing to work to defend it and advocate for it.

I greatly value my marriage to my wife.  25+ years now!  That does not, however, mean that my marriage has made be continuously and uniformly and unceasingly "happy."  It has taken a tremendous amount of hard work and devotion to make it viable, and yet I still screw up on a regular basis.  We have had our share of challenges and difficulties.  But none of that negates my devotion to my wife, nor my appreciate and valuation of the institution of marriage as being from God.

I greatly value my children.  That does not, however, mean that I have not struggled mightily, and failed often, in my efforts to be a good dad, role model, provider, counselor, and friend.  My children have brought me both tremendous joy, and also substantial difficulty and heartache.  Nevertheless, I love them very much and cherish my relationship with them.

And on and on and on.

I refuse to gauge the divinity of polygamy based on whether those who practiced it did so only with complete success and ease and rainbows and daffodils.

I also refuse to let your 2022 armchair quarterbacking and personal insults dissuade me from giving due consideration to the statements made by people who actually experienced polygamy, and who were - unlike you and I - entitled to personal revelation about entering into it.  Their assessment of its divinity matters a lot to me.

The Lord asks those who have covenanted with Him to do difficult things.  And while obedience brings forth substantial measures of joy and happiness, it can and often does also bring us challenges, discouragements, and struggles.  I can't help but think that Joseph Smith - who had his share of difficulties in life - was speaking in a heavily prospective way when he said that "{h}appiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God" (emphasis added).

In other words, I think the whole "fulness of joy" thing is, in many ways, not yet upon us.  Meanwhile, we work with what we've got.  We keep the commandments, showing gratitude for the blessings and joys and happinesses we receive along the way, and seeking strength for dealing with the challenges and travails and errors we encounter and make for ourselves.

Again, D&C 132.  Jacob 2.  The Bible.  We must "square" our perceptions about polygamy with these authorities.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Until you can come up with stats, it is also intellectually dishonest to pull the "for some" card.

Meh.  I've long since ceased caring about your adverse pronouncements on me, my character, my honesty, etc.  There are some on this board whose assessment of my behavior draws both my respect and consideration.  Not yours.  

2 hours ago, juliann said:

My best guess is it was the majority who were harmed....because women were the majority, and that is not even counting the children who had no relationship with a father. 

This is a very substantial non-sequitur.  Red herring.  Strawman.

I have never claimed that nobody was "harmed" relative to polygamy.  

2 hours ago, juliann said:

As for the very very tiresome bumper sticker about how great polygamy was for many....

Yet another strawman. 

I said: "The impact of polygamy was . . . a very mixed bag.  It worked very well for some, so-so for others, and 'horribl{y}' for yet others."

And this: "Polygamy is very difficult, to be sure."

And this: "Again, polygamy was a difficult and harmful practice for some.  For others, it worked quite well."

And this: "Presentism can color our perception of history."

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I can't recall his name right now, but a prominent early leader wrote an autobiography/diary and lauded his wives for their love for each other. His first wife hated the second wife. But you would have to go to her diary to know that. That is why so many say things like "some" had a hard time while many thought it was the bees knees. We only use the male perspective. 

Red herring.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2022 by smac97

[webbles]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

First, a woman should be doing this but you are likely more knowlegable than some random person.  This is a good list. I would start with the difficulty of researching polygamy and how it has always been formulated around the husbands with the wives as an afterthought to the point we don't even know their names. An example is how they count polygamist "families" as one entity, i.e., a man's family.  That leaves out all the wives who had their own families. 

This is definitely one of my pet peeves with reading family history.  It is almost always focused on the man.  All the books that have been printed about my ancestors, I can't think of a single one that is about the wife/wives.  They feel tangential to the story.  I just recently attended a family reunion where we shared stories about ancestors.  Of those stories, the vast majority were about the man, not the woman.  I love reading my female ancestor stories but they are so hard to find.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

This is definitely one of my pet peeves with reading family history.  It is almost always focused on the man.  All the books that have been printed about my ancestors, I can't think of a single one that is about the wife/wives.  They feel tangential to the story.  I just recently attended a family reunion where we shared stories about ancestors.  Of those stories, the vast majority were about the man, not the woman.  I love reading my female ancestor stories but they are so hard to find.

Historians often refer to women and children as the "silent majority".  We have very few primary sources from their perspective.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

This is definitely one of my pet peeves with reading family history.  It is almost always focused on the man.  All the books that have been printed about my ancestors, I can't think of a single one that is about the wife/wives.  They feel tangential to the story.  I just recently attended a family reunion where we shared stories about ancestors.  Of those stories, the vast majority were about the man, not the woman.  I love reading my female ancestor stories but they are so hard to find.

That's funny, all the books about my ancestors I can't think of a single one that doesn't include stories/bios about both husbands and wives.

I've also notices that children seemed to be much more effusive when writing memories of their mothers than their fathers.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Quote

I am not suggesting that we are obligated to accept the "angel and sword" story, only that we are not obligated to discard it either.  As Elder Melvin J. Ballard put it (from the same link as above), “The statement . . . concerning the angel appearing with the drawn sword is not a matter that is in our own church history. While it may be all true, the church has not pronounced it authentic nor has it contradicted it.”

You are seriously going to argue over a word, "discard?"

You are seriously going to say "About the sword and angel, modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories (like the crickets and seagulls)," and then complain when I respond to what you just wrote?

1 hour ago, juliann said:

This is why your extended posts become too much to read.

Feel free to not read them.  

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You then admit that even the church hasn't pronounced it authentic.

Yes.  That's why I said "I am not suggesting that we are obligated to accept the 'angel and sword' story, only that we are not obligated to discard it either."

That's why I quoted Elder Melvin J. Ballard.

I am not committed to the "angel and sword" story.  I feel no obligation to accept it or reject it.  As I said back in 2019:

Quote

I am curious how you account for the "some twenty different reminiscences that recount Joseph Smith’s encounters with a sword-bearing angel who commanded him to establish the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the early 1840s" compiled by Brian Hales.

To be sure, I am not super-duper invested in this narrative.  It's not canonized.  Most of the accounts are quite late, all are at least hearsy, and some are hearsay-within-hearsay.  But it's kinda hard to dispose of all of these accounts 100%

Sounds about right.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Yet that is one of the most ubiquitous polygamy stories ever. Discard means to get rid of something that isn't useful. I think that sums it up.

I have no qualms with you "discarding" the story.  I think others can contrarily find it useful to them.

Meanwhile, the point remains that Brian Hales and Don Bradley have apparently examined and written about these accounts in substantial detail, and they seem to think there are plausible grounds to accept them.  YMMV.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Things that we rely on that are not authenticated are not useful,

Um, what?  Do you apply this reasoning to the Nativity?  The miracles of Jesus?  His resurrection and ascension?   The First Vision and Joseph's various other theophanies?  The Gold Plates?  The translated Book of Mormon?  The Book of Abraham?

If these things have been "authenticated," then I sure would like to know that.  But if, as I suspect, they have not been "authenticated," then are they - as you put it - "not useful?"

Again from my remarks in 2019:

Quote

Quote

There is no way of proving that he didn't make the angle/sword story up or the promise of exaltation to the Kimball family.  

There is no way of proving that the angel/sword story was fabricated, either.  

But since when can historical events like this be "proven?"  Can anyone prove that Moses didn't carve out the tablets while on the mount and use them to fool the Israelites into accepting his authority?  Can anyone prove that Lazarus wasn't just in a coma, and that his "resurrection" was just an interesting coincidence?  Can anyone prove that the followers of Jesus removed His body from the tomb, and thereafter fabricated claims of Him being resurrected?

There are all sorts of things that we accept and "rely on" as a matter of faith, largely because they cannot be "authenticated." 

1 hour ago, juliann said:

in fact, this is the very type thing that has hurt us badly when it comes to the many folk tales we have relied on as if they were doctrine. We lose members over that. 

Our own Lowell Bennion apparently created (or misconstrued) a quote and attributed it to Aristotle.  Despite the specious attribution of the quote, its underlying sentiment seems sound: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  I have no qualms with considering the various stories about the angel and the sword, as well as arguments and analysis as to their provenance and likely probative value.  I acknowledge their shortcomings (see above), and the Church's failure to adopt them as authentic (see above).  But I don't feel obligated to "discard" them altogether.  In terms of historical issues, we are often left with less-than-ideal sources of information.  "Authentication" is often the exception, rather than the rule.  

1 hour ago, juliann said:

So when we have statements that are decades after the event (as in the cricket story)we would be wise to tread carefully.

I fully agree with that.

What I addressed was your statement that "modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories."

I am not an absolutist.  I acknowledge that a piece of evidence may have varying degrees of authenticated provenance, accuracy, probative weight, and so on.  I account for such strengths and weakensses.  Sometimes I reach a conclusion that a piece of evidence is of such dubious origins and authenticity that I should give it essentially no credence.  That I should "discard" it.

The "angel and sword" narratives are not really of sufficient import to me.  I am content to remain ambivalent about them.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Personally, I find it of little use...and almost silly....to put out the sword story as absolute proof and then have to say "but it's not authenticated!" before somebody beats you to it and makes you look like a little on the dishonest side. So, yes, discard. 

As it happens, I work in a profession where my peers and I can look at the exact same evidence and come away with very different interpretations and assessments of it.  We can do that without publicly impugning each other's character and honesty.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

There is a downside to helping women set aside fears about what they have been fed about polygamy? Just so you know saying men are from Mars, women are from Venus is about as sexist as it gets. It only goes to prove that polygamy has always been presented through male eyes and the minute that is challenged, a lot of men fall apart if they can't get women's experiences with it put back on the shelf. 

Perhaps it is sexist but it also true that men and women view things differently.   Our brains work differently and how we see the world differently.  Polygamy perhaps has been presented to through male eyes and that is why I think it should be a woman in Relief Society leading the conversation rather than have a man do it.   I understand the value of men learning the perspective of polygamy from a woman's point of view.   Where it all turns to mud is when a man tries to prove to a woman that polygamy is all good and when a woman tries to prove to a man that polygamy is all bad.   When positions of absolutes are made, it is difficult for any side to come to agreement. 

[juliann]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Let's see.  Juliann is attacking the honesty of someone whose viewpoint does not align with hers.  Must be a day ending in "y."

 

Oh, boy...here we go. When you get backed into a corner you start misrepresenting. I did not call you dishonest. I said you what you were doing was intellectually dishonest. Do you not know what that is? It is the use of logical fallacies. Strawman, which you are using liberally, is a part of intellectual dishonesty. 

 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, let's take a look at this (emphases added):

It is fairly inconsistent for you to say, in essence, "Listen to the 19th-century women who participated in polygamy, but only when they said things that accord with the personal opinions of Juliann in 2022."

So what?  Are you implying that they were being duplicitous?  That whenever they wrote something you don't like, they must have been lying?

 

Quote

 

I'm not going to continue to engage with strawmen arguments or logical fallacies. There are more than two possibilities here so you will not be successful in trying to force me into your false dilemma defense. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

I refuse to gauge the divinity of polygamy based on whether those who practiced it did so only with complete success and ease and rainbows and daffodils.

Another false dilemma. 

 

Quote

This is a very substantial non-sequitur.  Red herring.  Strawman.

Quote

 

In other words, intellectual dishonesty?

Quote

 

I have never claimed that nobody was "harmed" relative to polygamy.  

Yet another strawman. 

I said: "The impact of polygamy was . . . a very mixed bag.  It worked very well for some, so-so for others, and 'horribl{y}' for yet others."

And this: "Polygamy is very difficult, to be sure."

And this: "Again, polygamy was a difficult and harmful practice for some.  For others, it worked quite well."

And this: "Presentism can color our perception of history."

Red herring.

 

Your problem is I never claimed you claimed that. So the strawman and red herrings are yours.  

[juliann]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Meanwhile, let's take a look at this (emphases added):

 

I have the book you appear to be quoting. I can't tell what you are quoting, however, since you did not include page numbers. 

As for your "Bradley and Brian Hales researched" appeal to authority....you are not quoting Don Bradley. You are quoting Hales. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I avoid even the subject with my wife.   In the few times it has come up, it does not go well and I just move away from the subject as quickly as possible.

Chiming in against my better judgment...

This varies with personalities and testimonies. I've been married to two very strong LDS women. Both my late wife and my current (and hopefully last) wife were and are not "fans" of plural marriage, per se, but when faced with the question of "What if?" both had and have testimonies that plural marriage is a divine principle, only to be practiced upon commandment, and both said that they would practice it in that event.

As for me, I hope not to be asked to practice it in this life, and given that I'm now 70, I'm quite safe, I believe.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

One of the big problems in this forum and in general is the strong temptation to make a Judgement.

"Polygamy Good"

"Polygamy Bad"

then you get to "if you think Polygamy Good, You bad person"

Or "if you think Polygamy bad, You bad person"

 

The truth is, we don't have to, and we shouldn't be in the business of judging our ancestors.  They are all dead, they really don't care what our judgment is. What we can do, is study and learn about the practice, not from silly internet forums but from the people who lived it.  If you give a lesson about it, it should be to help people learn how it really worked for real people.  Their struggles with it. Their thoughts about it.  the struggles when it started, the struggles when it was ended.   Judgement kills learning. Why should I learn about something if I already know it is good (or bad).  If I am studying something to learn if it was good or bad then I can stop once I have made my judgement.  After the Judgment is made, any further study is just to find ammunition to support my judgement. 

 

Another false dilemma. Historical polygamy just is. There is no need for judgment but there is a need for accuracy and fairness in accounts. The problems usually come when people, usually men, try to defend it rather than describe it accurately with the best available data....which we don't have enough of. 

Again, women aren't suffering over polygamy because of struggles of their ancestors. And I doubt a RS would be asking for information about more stories. The problem is in how women are still being treated and forced to contemplate something that even a poll  found that a large majority of Mormons find it repulsive. (If anyone can remember that one, please link.)

If you pay attention, these debates are always the same. The minute someone questions the old saws about polygamy without using current research that centers on women, it becomes contentious. There is never a willingness to allow for anything that might break down a narrative that if polygamy worked for some, it was OK. There is particularly never any attempt to describe what happened to the women and children who were discarded by husbands after the Manifesto[s] after this practice that some want to uphold as doctrine. 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Chiming in against my better judgment...

This varies with personalities and testimonies. I've been married to two very strong LDS women. Both my late wife and my current (and hopefully last) wife were and are not "fans" of plural marriage, per se, but when faced with the question of "What if?" both had and have testimonies that plural marriage is a divine principle, only to be practiced upon commandment, and both said that they would practice it in that event.

As for me, I hope not to be asked to practice it in this life, and given that I'm now 70, I'm quite safe, I believe.

I call this the sock puppet appeal.

And what happened to those who didn't practice it? What was their penalty? 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh, boy...here we go. When you get backed into a corner you start misrepresenting. I did not call you dishonest.

Let's review:

Quote

Quote

{Smac}: Again, polygamy was a difficult and harmful practice for some.  For others, it worked quite well.

{Juliann}: This has gotten to the point where it is intellectually dishonest. You know darn well that those staunch public defenders were writing private journals that were anything but happy. Until you can come up with stats, it is also intellectually dishonest to pull the "for some" card.

This is nothing but you publicly accusing me of dishonesty.

In the end, it doesn't really matter.  Internet message boards are a dime a dozen, as is the value of your character pronouncements.

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

I said you what you were doing was intellectually dishonest.

Uh huh.

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Do you not know what that is? It is the use of logical fallacies. Strawman, which you are using liberally, is a part of intellectual dishonesty.  

I don't think I have used logical fallacies.  I also don't think I am intellectually dishonest.

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm not going to continue to engage with strawmen arguments or logical fallacies.  There are more than two possibilities here so you will not be successful in trying to force me into your false dilemma defense. 

I think it was inconvenient and awkward for you to be caught implicitly impugning the honesty of 19th-century Latter-day Saint women who participated in polygamy, and to be caught doing so right after telling us that we should listen to these women.

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

I refuse to gauge the divinity of polygamy based on whether those who practiced it did so only with complete success and ease and rainbows and daffodils.

Another false dilemma. 

A dilemma is "a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable one."

A false dilemma is "a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when there are many options or sides."

My statement ("I refuse to gauge the divinity of polygamy based on whether those who practiced it did so only with complete success and ease and rainbows and daffodils") does not present "two or more alternatives" or "only two options."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2022 by smac97

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Another false dilemma. Historical polygamy just is. There is no need for judgment but there is a need for accuracy and fairness in accounts. The problems usually come when people, usually men, try to defend it rather than describe it accurately with the best available data....which we don't have enough of. 

I agree.  The more data the better

 

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

gain, women aren't suffering over polygamy because of struggles of their ancestors. And I doubt a RS would be asking for information about more stories. The problem is in how women are still being treated and forced to contemplate something that even a poll  found that a large majority of Mormons find it repulsive. (If anyone can remember that one, please link.)

Then the focus should be on todays issues and todays problems.  Historical polygamy might be a red herring.

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

If you pay attention, these debates are always the same. The minute someone questions the old saws about polygamy without using current research that centers on women, it becomes contentious. There is never a willingness to allow for anything that might break down a narrative that if polygamy worked for some, it was OK. There is particularly never any attempt to describe what happened to the women and children who were discarded by husbands after the Manifesto[s] after this practice that some want to uphold as doctrine. 

I always welcome new information.  My goal is a better understanding on what happened, not to defend or condemn the practice.  

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I call this the sock puppet appeal.

Call it what you want. Are you saying my wives are sock puppets?  I was commenting upon something @carbon dioxide said, just to say that others' experiences differ sometimes from his. Lots of diversity in this question. I know you have a very sturdy opinion in regards to the question, and I wish you well with it.

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

And what happened to those who didn't practice it? What was their penalty? 

Don't know. Not my problem.

As for myself, I expect the Lord to treat us according to His standards, and I shall endeavor to do what I can to act in accordance with them, as best I understand them. Having been blessed from time to time with effective guidance through the Holy Ghost at key points in my life, I shall endeavor to act in such a way as to be worthy of such guidance in the future.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Chiming in against my better judgment...

This varies with personalities and testimonies. I've been married to two very strong LDS women. Both my late wife and my current (and hopefully last) wife were and are not "fans" of plural marriage, per se, but when faced with the question of "What if?" both had and have testimonies that plural marriage is a divine principle, only to be practiced upon commandment, and both said that they would practice it in that event.

As for me, I hope not to be asked to practice it in this life, and given that I'm now 70, I'm quite safe, I believe.

Polygamy is the last thing I would want.   I occasionally see the big problem with monogamy is that it is one wife too many.  I will defend the scriptural and basic concept of polygamy while clearly knowing that it has been abused too many times and many bad things came from it.  While recognizing that having just one wife is not a cure of abuses either.  We live in a society with very little polygamy yet abuse of women and children is rampant and broken homes.  Clearly monogamy is not the cure all but polygamy not the big evil that if we avoid, life is bliss.

The problem in my view is not polygamy or monogamy as concepts but the individuals who are involved.  People who engage in abuse, neglect, and other things have a problem with their core person.  It is not the polygamy that made some men abuse or treat their wives like crap.  They would have done so if they had one wife.  It was their innate flaws they brought with them before they got married. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[provoman]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Normal

ADJECTIVE

Something that is normal is usual and ordinary, and is what people expect.

Well given that teenage Brides of Adult males are as old as history, then is it “not normal”

A wikipedia article, 

For the latter half of the 19th century between 13-18% of native-born white female first marriages in the US were under age 18.[21]

 

[21] Fitch, Catherine; Ruggles, Steven (2000). "Historical trends in marriage formation: The United States 1850–1990". In Waite, Linda J.; Bachrach, Christine (eds.). The Ties that Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation. Transaction Publishers. pp. 59–88. ISBN 9781412839365. Retrieved 11 September 2021.

 

13-18% sure seems normal.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Polygamy is the last thing I would want.   I occasionally see the big problem with monogamy is that it is one wife too many.  I will defend the scriptural and basic concept of polygamy while clearly knowing that it has been abused too many times and many bad things came from it.  While recognizing that having just one wife is not a cure of abuses either.  We live in a society with very little polygamy yet abuse of women and children is rampant and broken homes.  Clearly monogamy is not the cure all but polygamy not the big evil that if we avoid, life is bliss.

The elephant in the room is that it is not at all unknown in monogamy for the female partner to abuse the male, and use society's expectations as a cover for it. In such cases, nogamy or agamy would seem to be the ideal. The fish not needing a bicycle and all that.

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The problem in my view is not polygamy or monogamy as concepts but the individuals who are involved.  People who engage in abuse, neglect, and other things have a problem with their core person.  It is not the polygamy that made some men abuse or treat their wives like crap.  They would have done so if they had one wife.  It was their innate flaws they brought with them before they got married. 

Amen to the bolded above.

In this life, we are all engaged in a test of our suitability to take on Father's work, at His level. I suspect that though many if not most will be heirs of salvation, fewer of us will pass the test to end up heirs of exaltation. As to what percentage will pass, I would not care to speculate. My further speculation, which in times past has garnered me scorn and derision from certain other posters, is that more females than males will pass the test, and thus make plural marriage a necessity, if all who are worthy are to be accorded the promised reward of exaltation. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that is my understanding, based on what I have seen in scripture. I don't demand that others believe me.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

I have the book you appear to be quoting. I can't tell what you are quoting, however, since you did not include page numbers. 

I provided a link.  And the text is searchable.

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

As for your "Bradley and Brian Hales researched" appeal to authority....

An "appeal to authority" posits that " because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."

I did not cite Hales and Bradley for the proposition that their assessment of the sword-and-angel story "must therefore be true."  For myself, I am not accustomed to speaking of "scholarship" as a monolithic thing (as in "modern scholarship is discarding...").  Such a pronouncement is per se facile as to most issues because, well, "modern scholarship" is all over the place.  But in terms of the sword-and-angel story, I cited Hales and Bradley - whom I think can be reasonably characterized as "scholars" in the context of LDS history, doctrine, etc. - in response to your unsubstantiated assertion that "modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories {specifically including the sword-and-angel story}."

Meanwhile, I invite you to ponder the meaning of "appeal to authority" in the context of this statement: "About the sword and angel, modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories (like the crickets and seagulls.)"  To me, that sounds quite a bit like "Because modern scholarship is 'discarding' the angel-and-sword story, we should, too."

Also, you said: "If I recall, it originated from one person."  Per Hales, there were 20 accounts from nine sources:

1. Joseph Lee Robinson (journal entry in 1853, referencing statement by Joseph Smith in apparently 1841 or 1846)
2. Lorenzo Snow (1869 affidavit from Joseph F. Smith (so hearsay within hearsay), 1892 testimony in "Temple Lot" case, 1896 statement (Heber J. Grant quoting Lorenzo Snow)
3. Benjamin F. Johnson (1869 affidavit, 1896 writing, 1903 writing)
4. Eliza R. Snow (remarks in 1880 RS meeting, 1884 biography quoting statement from Joseph to her brother (so possibly hearsay within hearsay), 1887 recollection)
5. Orson Pratt (pre-1881 statement recorded in diary of Charles Lowell Walker)
6. Zina Huntington (statements in 1881 and 1894)
7. Helen Mar Kimball (1882 statement, 1884 statement)
8. Erastus Snow (1883 statement recorded in diary of Charles Lowell Walker, 1883 statement during St. George stake conference)
9. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (statements in 1902, 1904, 1905).

I have given consideration to the actual historical statements abou the angel-and-sword story (given your factually incorrect recollection that the story "originated from one person," it seems fair to surmise that you have not given much, if any, study and consideration to the actual statements).

I have not relied on some nebulous (and, so far, unsubstantiated) appeal to "modern scholarship" about the sword-and-angel story.  I don't think "modern scholarship" is competently situated to make informed pronouncements about matters so drenched in religious belief.  

I have given consideration not just to the statements, but to the circumstances under which they were made.  I have considered them as having weakened credibility, provenance and probative weight because they are all hearsay (some even hearsay within hearsay), and also because of the substantial intervals of time between the timeframe of when Joseph would have made these statements and when they were eventually written down.

However, I have also given some real thought and consideration to the character and reputation of some of the declarants.  For example, Lorenzo Snow seemed to be, overall, a fairly honorable man.  And one of his recollections about the angel-and-sword story was presented in a (presumably sworn) affidavit used in a legal proceeding, and another came from him actually testifying during a legal proceeding. 

Similarly, Benjamin F. Johnson also made a statement in a (presumably sworn) affidavit.

And then there is Eliza R. Snow, who repeatedly attributed the story to Joseph Smith, including during a Relief Society meeting, again in a published biography.

Helen Mar Kimball also twice put her recollection in published print.

Mary Lightner gave her recollection at least four times, one of which was in a public setting.

I have also given consideration to the apparent absence of any repudiation of this story by any of the declarants.  

To be sure, hearsay, particularly multiple hearsay, warrants caution and scrutiny.  But then, I also think that a person of Lorenzo Snow's character and integrity would not be likely to fabricate something so sacred, let alone fabricate it while testifying under oath in court.

Still plenty of room for further study and consideration, but I'm not sure it's worth the time.  Again, I'm just not that invested in this story.  It is a secondary and peripheral piece of evidence relative to the authenticity/divinity of D&C 132, Jacob 2, etc.

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

you are not quoting Don Bradley. You are quoting Hales. 

Had you bothered to review the Hales article at the link I provided, and/or my verbatim quote from that article, you would know that Hales quoted/summarized Bradley.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, provoman said:

Well given that teenage Brides of Adult males are as old as history, then is it “not normal”

My stepmom's first marriage, at age 14, was to a man age 21. It was Kansas, back in 1938, and she needed, and got parental consent.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, YJacket said:

Well, you could just blow up the whole system and tell them JS never instituted polygamy, fought against it his entire life, worked to excommunicate any who practiced it.  You could tell them Nauvoo rather than being a virtuous city had an extremely seedy underbelly of prostitution and creating counterfiet money.  That the prostitution was with women on the outskirts of town (i.e. the poor areas) who traded sex for food.  That one of BY's first polygamous wives was not approved by Joseph, that that wife left her husband and 7 kids, she brought 2 of them with her and the infant who's name was Brigham Young Cobb died on her way to go live with her lover; that in the court divorce documents in the 1850s no mention of religious duty to God was found; she just simply stated that she loved BY more and that her love for her husband had grown cold.  And that in any other circumstance we would clearly conclude that whatever man this woman went to was committing adultery, and that having a child named after your next "husband" while currently married to another man would be a very huge indicator that the child was the product of an adulterous relationship.

I mean, that's what I'd do if I was asked to do what you were . . .

We could do all that.

But we'd be wrong and telling falsehoods.