Is Polygamy Eternal?

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I am surprised any member would think this would even be up for debate. It very clear at this point he live polygamy. 

Oh there's a VERY vocal small segment that think it was one vast conspiracy and he never did.

There's an even smaller sub segment that thinks the twelve (specifically Willard Richards, John Taylor and possibly Brigham) had Joseph and Hyrum killed because they were going to get rid of all the polygamists in Nauvoo.

There's a lot of crazy theories around...

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There's an even smaller sub segment that thinks the twelve (specifically Willard Richards, John Taylor and possibly Brigham) had Joseph and Hyrum killed because they were going to get rid of all the polygamists in Nauvoo.

Are any of these still members? (Perhaps technically if they haven’t resigned and their leaders are not aware of their ideas). Don’t they generally hold the position the Church went apostate after Joseph died?

Edited October 14, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are any of these still members? (Perhaps technically if they haven’t resigned and their leaders are not aware of their ideas). Don’t they generally hold the position the Church went apostate after Joseph died?

I recently came across a YouTube interview with a researcher named Rob Fotheringham whose findings challenge the Church's narrative about the origins of polygamy.  Thus far I have only watched one of the videos he produced.   As of the time of this interview (October 2021 I think) apparently he was a member, but I would not be surprised if that has changed:

Edited October 14, 2023 by manol

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, manol said:

I recently came across a YouTube interview with a researcher named Rob Fotheringham whose findings challenge the Church's narrative about the origins of polygamy.  Thus far I have only watched one of the videos he produced.   As of the time of this interview (October 2021 I think) apparently he was a member, but I would not be surprised if that has changed:

“Rob confirms in this new video that he was excommunicated.”

https://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=70091&sid=47c937643dbd775fcfcea96134b32b79

Edited October 14, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

“Rob confirms in this new video that he was excommunicated.”

https://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=70091&sid=47c937643dbd775fcfcea96134b32b79

I'm not historian enough to evaluate the authenticity of the documentary evidence Fotheringham presents, and frankly his presentations are kinda boring (though to be fair I've only watched one and a half videos by him), BUT I  feel like I owe it to my 30-years-ago self to watch at least some of them.   They would have been quite challenging to my then-paradigm, but for a while there I was reading everything relevant I could get my hands on because I really wanted to understand the WHY of this aspect (polygamy) of my adopted heritage.   It wouldn't have occurred to me to question whether Joseph Smith was the one who instituted the practice. 

On the other hand the interview video held my attention all the way through.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by manol

[Calm]

I watched one of his videos and thought it was poor research.  I am going off of memory, so may be wrong that this applies to him, but can’t remember anyone else I checked out lately.  He makes a claim that a section of the D&C 130 iirc has no contemporary evidence and therefore was a late addition by Willard Richards , but in order to do that he has to ignore the actual contemporary info, such as the scribe who wrote it down would not have been available after Joseph died and it was published prior to Joseph’s death.  The scribe thing was a relatively easy find that anyone doing research should have looked at.  That info is included in the JSPs.  He was likely either lazy or stops when he gets the answer he wants and doesn’t double-check his conclusions or it’s intentional, imo.

The research rebutting him was done on LDSFF iirc, but I double checked it.

I might have even posted it here, because it was for either here or FAIR.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

“Rob confirms in this new video that he was excommunicated.”

https://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=70091&sid=47c937643dbd775fcfcea96134b32b79

If you have to post to the Freedom Forum you have already lost.

[theplains]

On 9/12/2023 at 11:06 AM, Calm said:

When you think about it, you become exalted by aligning your will with God’s Will, so by the time we get to exalted status where eternal marriage and therefore possibly polygamy comes into play, if God desires polygamy to be part of eternity***, we will be asking him to participate because we also desire it…not because we have become some sort of Stepford doll or puppet of God, but because we have grown to perfect understanding of the eternal value of polygamy and so will see how we should practice it were appropriate or we will choose to only have one of our marriages confirmed by the Spirit if monogamy is God’s Will for us.

The teaching of Heavenly Father’s polygamy is implied in Doctrine and Covenants 132:31 but
another thing to consider about section 132 is concubinage.  It would not seem unreasonable
if the LDS version of Heavenly Father also had many concubines.

" ... wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, 
David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many 
wives and concubines" (verse 1).

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as 
also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing 
did they sin save in those things which they received not of me" (verse 38).

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and many other servants of God did not have many wives
and concubines.  I couldn't find it either for the Book of Mormon characters.

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, theplains said:

The teaching of Heavenly Father’s polygamy is implied in Doctrine and Covenants 132:31 but
another thing to consider about section 132 is concubinage.  It would not seem unreasonable
if the LDS version of Heavenly Father also had many concubines.

" ... wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, 
David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many 
wives and concubines" (verse 1).

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as 
also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing 
did they sin save in those things which they received not of me" (verse 38).

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and many other servants of God did not have many wives
and concubines.  I couldn't find it either for the Book of Mormon characters.

You are right.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and many other servants of God did not have many wives
and concubines.  I couldn't find it either for the Book of Mormon characters.

Part of the challenge here is that these texts are interacting with the Old Testament. There is in Deuteronomy 17 a section of the text which is referred to as the Kingship code. In particular, here is Deut. 17:17, 20 (KJV):

Quote

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. … That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

It is this passage that the Book of Mormon is using in Jacob 2. Here is 2:12-13 (my emphasis) -

Quote

And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully. And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

And then we get to Jacob 2:24 -

Quote

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

And we can see here not only what the issue is, but the reason why it could be declared abominable. It is a fascinating feature of the Book of Mormon text.

2,000 years ago, another group of Jews tried to deal with the issue of the polygamy of David and Solomon, and we can read about it in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Damascus Document (which wasn't limited to Qumran - it was found in the Cairo Genizah):

(It starts at the bottom of page 55, and continues to page 56). The part of interest to us reads:

Quote

The true meaning of this verse concerns the three traps of Belial about which Levi son of Jacob said that Belial would catch Israel in, so he directed them towards three kinds of righteousness.

The first is fornication; the second is wealth; the third is defiling the sanctuary. Who escapes from one is caught in the next; and whoever escapes from that is caught in the other.

The Shoddy-Wall-Builders who went after "Precept" - Precept is a Raver of whom it says, "they shall surely rave" (Mic. 2:6) - they are caught in two: fornication, by taking two wives in their lifetimes, although the principle of creation is "male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27) and those who went into the ark "went into the ark two by two" (Gen. 7:9). Concerning the Leader it is written "he shall not multiply wives to himself" (Deut. 17:17); but David had not read the sealed book of the Law in the Ark; for it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the elders who served the goddess Ashtoret. It lay buried <and was not> revealed until the appearance of Zadok. Nevertheless the deeds of David were all excellent, except the murder of Uriah and God forgave him for that.

This is a two thousand year old argument for monogamy based on the creation (Gen. 1:27), based on the flood (Gen. 7:9), and based on the Kingship code in Deuteronomy 17. It is this last one that causes problems for Jewish believers who also hold King David in high esteem (King Solomon, they didn't generally hold in nearly as high an esteem). David violated this law, and you can see admitted in the text above. But then we get more interpretation (although the text above doesn't reference the passages). It mentions "the sealed book of the Law", that was found with the appearance of Zadok. What does this refer to, and why does it matter? The "book of the Law" is generally considered to be the Book of Deuteronomy. It was supposed to have been rediscovered in the temple by the priest Hilkiah, described in 2 Kings 22:8-11:

Quote

And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the abook of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord. And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying,  Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.

There are a couple of things that this interpretation in the Damascus document is trying to suggest. The excuse given here is that if the Book of Deuteronomy was hidden in the Ark until the time of Hilkiah, David couldn't possibly have read it, and so he couldn't be held responsible for breaking those commandments, which means, when we deal with David, the only real blemish to his record was that whole dirty affair with Bathsheba, and, as the text above notes, "God forgave him for that". It is a complex discussion to deal with what is clearly a contradiction between a commandment (Deuteronomy 17) and the reality that David and Solomon had many wives.

You might even notice how this is similar in fact to the way it is approached in D&C 132. The two important verses there are verses 38 and 39:

Quote

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

There is a likely reference here to another text that is sometimes invoked in the debate over polygamy (a debate that has been going on for thousands of years) - 2 Samuel 12:7-8 - "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, ... I gave thee [David] thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, ..." And this provides the cues that lead D&C 132 to the conclusion that at least in some cases, this wasn't an issue. Not because David had many wives, but because God gave them to him. So when Deuteronomy 17:17 reads "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself", that is taken as being separate from God giving them. Which potentially leaves (as above) the one clear problematic case with David that Bathsheba wasn't on the approved list. And of course D&C 132 goes with a different conclusion over the outcome.

The Book of Mormon doesn't recognize either distinction as being valid. Part of the reason for the interpretation used in Jacob is that the Nephites appear to be engaging in polygamy (or at least starting to), and were using David and Solomon for their arguments that this was an acceptable thing. Jacob puts his foot down on it.

We shouldn't get too carried away with the distinction made over "many" as opposed to "more than one" (which is one way to read the text).  Much of Judaism eventually settled on a definition of "many" as being more than four - and this was the widest consensus until Gershom's ban eliminated polygamy in most of Judaism. This number of four was a way to primarily protect Jacob (David and Solomon not so much).

All of this isn't to assert some sort of modern day application of all of this - it is merely to point out that the Book of Mormon texts and the D&C passages are interacting directly with the Old Testament text - and we need to be aware when we read them of this interaction, so that we understand that this isn't coming out of nowhere.

As a final note - the issue of concubines is a bit of a misnomer here. Our view of concubines is heavily influenced by the use of the idea within Islam - particularly as practiced in the Ottoman empire. It is less clear what the differences were in the Old Testament time frames. Historically, systems that used concubinage distinguish between the rights and privileges of primary wives and concubines (secondary wives). It is hard to imagine any context in which God the Father, having married many women, would treat them unequally in different tiers ...

[Calm]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The teaching of Heavenly Father’s polygamy is implied in Doctrine and Covenants 132:31 but
another thing to consider about section 132 is concubinage.  It would not seem unreasonable
if the LDS version of Heavenly Father also had many concubines.

Such contradicts what he teaches about himself, he would not have relationships that would create a second, lower class woman for eternity. (What Ben says above)

Quote

and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

2 Ne 26:33

Edited October 16, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You are right.

No, he isn’t.

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, he isn’t.

Oh, I thought that he was. Or I have a real chip on my shoulder about the polygamy that Joseph restored, which IMHO didn't need to be. 

Edited: @Calm I counted under 20 wives for all four prophets he mentioned...so not many comparable to BY and JS. And many other LDS men. 

So the four I mentioned, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses had well under 20 total. But Solomon sure had plenty.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, I thought that he was. Or I have a real chip on my shoulder about the polygamy that Joseph restored, which IMHO didn't need to be. 

Edited: @Calm I counted under 20 wives for all four prophets he mentioned...so not many comparable to BY and JS. And many other LDS men. 

So the four I mentioned, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses had well under 20 total. But Solomon sure had plenty.

This was what I was responding to, it seems you are responding to something else in his comment.  Sorry for the mistake,

Quote

 It would not seem unreasonable
if the LDS version of Heavenly Father also had many concubines.

 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

This was what I was responding to, it seems you are responding to something else in his comment.  Sorry for the mistake,

 

Whew, good to know. 

[manol]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I have a real chip on my shoulder about the polygamy that Joseph restored, which IMHO didn't need to be.

You are not alone.   You might find this paper interesting:

http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.amazonaws.com/remnant/JosephSmithsMonogamy.pdf

[webbles]

1 hour ago, manol said:

You are not alone.   You might find this paper interesting:

http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.amazonaws.com/remnant/JosephSmithsMonogamy.pdf

I noticed that it doesn't mention the Lott family bible?  Was that found after this was published (2015)?  Or has it been shown to not be contemporary?  You can see it at https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/7226d36f-b3a5-4c0e-9d0c-33d87d46ffb4/0/3.  It records the Lott's sealings and records that they gave their daughter (Melissa) to wife.  Then it records Melissa Smith in a later marriage.  As she is one of the accepted wives and her family bible calls her a Smith after a marriage, it feels like pretty good contemporary evidence.

It is also interesting that the papers attempt to separate sealings from marriage still shows that some would be polygamist after death.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, manol said:

You are not alone.   You might find this paper interesting:

http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.amazonaws.com/remnant/JosephSmithsMonogamy.pdf

Not very convincing.

[manol]

On 10/16/2023 at 10:49 PM, webbles said:

I noticed that it doesn't mention the Lott family bible?  Was that found after this was published (2015)?  Or has it been shown to not be contemporary?  You can see it at https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/7226d36f-b3a5-4c0e-9d0c-33d87d46ffb4/0/3.  It records the Lott's sealings and records that they gave their daughter (Melissa) to wife.  Then it records Melissa Smith in a later marriage.  As she is one of the accepted wives and her family bible calls her a Smith after a marriage, it feels like pretty good contemporary evidence.

I don't know; I have at best a layman's understanding of these things, nor have I come close to examining all of the available evidence.

My understanding is that there is evidence on both sides, but that the preponderance of the evidence supports the view that Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy in private while opposing it in public.

This was my view for several decades, my first encounter with polygamy being at age thirteen.  My internal explanation was that Joseph disobeyed a lower law ("thou shalt not lie") in order to obey a higher law ("all those who have this law [plurality of wives] revealed unto them must obey the same").  I am under the impression that similar reasoning was present, and at at times prevalent, within the Church from the late 1800's up until at least the "Second Manifesto" in 1904. 

On 10/16/2023 at 10:49 PM, webbles said:

It is also interesting that the papers attempt to separate sealings from marriage still shows that some would be polygamist after death.

I agree that the conflation of the terms "marriage" and "sealing" is a problem for those who think Joseph's sealings to multiple women were not "marriages" in the same sense that Brigham's sealings were. 

One theory is that, having had his calling and election made sure, and believing that exaltation was a family group thing rather than an individual thing, Joseph sought to have his friends (male and female) SEALED to him so that they would be assured exaltation along with him.  I think this is what the no-longer-practiced doctrine of "adoption" was about, having been replaced by the current concept of exaltation for each individual family unit rather than exaltation by being sealed to someone who has attained exaltation. 

My opinion is that Joseph was probably trying to link together his "soul group" via sealings, and that late in his life his concept evolved and his emphasis shifted.  I admit that this is me seeing Joseph through the lens of my own experiences.

One problem with these and other theories which interpret Joseph Smith's sealings to other women as something significantly different from plural marriage as taught and practiced by Brigham Young is that it's hard to make the distinction without throwing Brigham under a bus, with all the messiness that invokes.  

Imo this is one of those issues where there is at least some plausible evidence supporting multiple differing views, some moreso than others, and if the net result is that individuals put more trust directly in God (or in their conscience, which is arguably the Light of Christ) than in this or that version of history, then so much the better.  It will have all worked together for our good. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by manol

[theplains]

On 10/16/2023 at 2:52 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

We shouldn't get too carried away with the distinction made over "many" as opposed to "more than one" (which is one way to read the text).  Much of Judaism eventually settled on a definition of "many" as being more than four - and this was the widest consensus until Gershom's ban eliminated polygamy in most of Judaism. This number of four was a way to primarily protect Jacob (David and Solomon not so much).

The way people define "many" has significant ramifications.

If someone wants to give an inaccurate portrayal of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and "many" other
servants of God in regards to having "many" wives and concubines, then saying "more than one" is
much better than saying "many".  Even saying Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses had at least five
(5 being more than 4) wives and concubines is incorrect.

That's why I don't agree with the Doctrine and Covenants passage about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, 
Moses, and "many" other servants of God having "many" wives and concubines "from the beginning 
of creation until this time".  Supposedly "until this time" is July 1843 (the supposed date of section 132).
I heard some of the early Latter-day Saints had many wives (? in number) but nothing about them
having many concubines (? in number).  It seems like the law of the priesthood sets the number of
wives to 10 (and virgins at that) in 132:61-63.  But again, no mention of concubines is given.

Add to the list above Adam, Cain, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Peter, Paul, and "many" others in the Old and New 
Testaments who did not have "many" wives and concubines.

As a side note - using "many" to denote a lot (more than four or eight) or a few (in number or length of
years) is also used in the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 17:4 says they journeyed many years in the wilderness and then specifically mentions 8 years.  
Then verse 7 says that the word of the Lord came to Nephi after he was in the land of Bountiful for 
many days.  Verse 20 makes another reference to being led in the wilderness for many years. 1 Nephi 
18:9 makes another reference to being blown by the wind towards the promised land for many days.
344 days is mentioned for the Jaredite travel to the promised land (Ether 6:11-12) while "many
days" (unspecified) is applied to Lehi's water voyage (1 Nephi 18:23).

Edited October 19, 2023 by theplains

[Benjamin McGuire]

45 minutes ago, theplains said:

The way people define "many" has significant ramifications.

The word "many" in English isn't particularly reflective of the underlying Hebrew text. This is part of the problem of a discussion like this.

45 minutes ago, theplains said:

That's why I don't agree with the Doctrine and Covenants passage about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and "many" other servants of God having "many" wives and concubines "from the beginning of creation until this time".

Part of the challenge here is evident in the way that you use the quotation marks - "many wives and concubines" is a direct quote from the Book of Mormon from Jacob 2:24 -

Quote

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

The point of the section in the D&C is to reconstextualize the passage in the Book of Mormon. But, as I noted earlier, this leaves us with an unresolved problem because the D&C doesn't recognize the Old Testament passage underlying the text of Jacob 2. So to the extent that the Book of Mormon isn't really worried about an actual number (and I don't think that it is), the D&C section isn't worried about it either. So we can recognize that the problem in the Book of Mormon (and to an extent in the Old Testament) is about marrying more than one wife, not in establishing what might be an appropriate number of wives to marry.

45 minutes ago, theplains said:

It seems like the law of the priesthood sets the number of wives to 10 (and virgins at that) in 132:61-63.  But again, no mention of concubines is given.

And here, you might understand why I would find this sort of interpretation to be more than a little wild. We wouldn't expect a mention of concubines - because the idea of concubines is an idea that has no social equivalent in western culture. Even the distinction is a little artificial, created by the language of the King James text - concubines were legal wives (in every sense that we normally understand the word wife).

45 minutes ago, theplains said:

As a side note - using "many" to denote a lot (more than four or eight) or a few (in number or length of years) is also used in the Book of Mormon.

This is a completely irrelevant observation.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[theplains]

On 10/19/2023 at 11:21 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The word "many" in English isn't particularly reflective of the underlying Hebrew text.

How about the word "many" used in the English text of the Doctrine and Covenants?

[Tacenda]

First listened to the latest podcast on At Last She Said It. And on it they shared a blogger's experience while doing her genealogy. I wanted to c/p it because it sounds like the early LDS women didn't have much consent really on if their husbands took another wife. This sort of goes with the other thread of the oppression of women in the church as well.

 https://atlastshesaidit.substack.com/p/say-more-at-last-she-writes-it

The Nothingness of my
Mother’s Mothers’ Consent

by Emily Nelson Wadley

I’m not entirely sure how I came to be toggling

between FamilySearch and a word document, searching for, finding and typing women’s names into a list. But here I am. These are the generations of my mother’s mothers who were in polygamist marriages. Polygamy has always been a “deep-breath-eyeroll-shake-head-stomach-ache” part of my religious cultural heritage. I’ve been plenty disturbed by the concept, the context, the controversy of did Joseph or didn’t he?, and certainly the hushed tones around it all. I guess I’ve just been curiouser and curiouser about the specific polygamist fruits hanging on my family tree. I’ve never looked, so I’ve never seen, and now it seems I cannot look away. I click the down arrow on each of my mother’s mothers to see the “other wives” of the men to which they were married.

My empathy is pricked by the intimacy of reading and spelling their names, their full names, their maiden names. After ninety minutes of clicking and toggling and checking and rechecking, I think I’m finished. Initially, I planned to go through my father’s mothers too, but this is starting to feel overwhelming. So, I decide at this point, I’ll just tally the numbers for my mother’s side alone. As I count all the women for each man, “4 for Chester,.. 7 for Christian…” and push the corresponding number on the calculator, I feel the watery heat of tears pooling in my eyes.

“…equals… 56.”
9 men. 56 women.

Typically, when discussing my Mormon heritage, I describe my family lines through a grandfather frame; so-and-so man had this-and-that number of wives, I come through wife number “__”.  But today, 56 women are staring up at me from the calculator and I know it’s time to change the framing of my family tree. Nine of my mother’s mothers, from four different generations, shared their husbands and their lives with 47 other women. 

I can’t know how each of the women in my family felt about their situation, but these statements from Joseph F. Smith, president of the Mormon Church during the Reed Smoot Hearings in 1907, rend me with sorrow.

JFSmith: The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord will destroy her, but I do not know how he will do it.

Question:  Is it not true that if she refuses her consent, her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent?

JFSmith: Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement.

Question: Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing?

JFSmith: It amounts to nothing but her consent.

(Proceedings 1907, HC 1:201, D&C 132).

Hearing Joseph F. Smith describe the meaning of the meaninglessness behind meaningless consent offered to women in exchange for their participation in polygamous marriages, I also hear a faint echo of what I’ve experienced in Mormonism. A choice between anything and eternal damnation is not true choice.

There is no growth, no sense of self, no filling the measure of one’s creation without true choice.

It is certainly not the same as the agency I was given by God. It is the exercise of control by men who claim authority over me. Joseph F. Smith was right, my consent amounts to nothing meaningful. There is no growth, no sense of self, no filling the measure of one’s creation without true choice. 

The Mormon theology I was taught puts the ultimate value on one’s agency explaining that the Atonement of Christ protects that gift. To be an agent unto one’s self is to order, create and guide the experiences of one’s life. God used creative power to build worlds of dizzying complexity, the variety of which we have yet to comprehend. This is how I am created in God’s image; I also have the divine power of creative agency. This is the gift of the Creators to their Children, to choose the meaning of their existence.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Tacenda

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 10/20/2023 at 12:18 PM, theplains said:

How about the word "many" used in the English text of the Doctrine and Covenants?

Since the D&C is quoting other scripture, our concern is about what is meant in the other scripture - not the various ways that we can read the English word in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

First listened to the latest podcast on At Last She Said It. And on it they shared a blogger's experience while doing her genealogy. I wanted to c/p it because it sounds like the early LDS women didn't have much consent really on if their husbands took another wife. This sort of goes with the other thread of the oppression of women in the church as well.

Has there been a study done on what the consent was like in polygamy?  I have an ancestor where the new wife initiated the process by talking to her bishop and saying she wanted to marry the man.  The bishop talked to the man who said no to it.  His current wife then told him that he should repent and actually marry the new wife.  I have another ancestor (technically, a brother of a direct ancestor) where the wife said they should practice polygamy and she picked out the second wife.  Those situations were probably rare but I'm curious how rare.  What percentage of current wives had a say in the other marriages?

Edited October 22, 2023 by webbles