Your Friday Firestorm #52
All good things come to an end. Lots of mediocre things, too.
This is the last of them, and it’s a doozy. Considering the date there were other frontrunners, but this is the mother of all firestorms. In the weeks to come I’ll look back and see if there are any conclusions to draw. But for now… enjoy this long but oh-so-fiery post.
Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory….
Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God….
Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it…. 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.
And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed….And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many….
Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God….
And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified….
And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
We are indeed a covenant people.
Comment by Peter LLC — June 27, 2008 @ 5:34 am
p.s. this is timely.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 5:47 am
The prose here is as clear as mud.
Comment by Ronan — June 27, 2008 @ 7:06 am
P.S.
That video is horrible, as are the related videos. Who has the guts to click on “REJUVENECIMIEN TO VAGINAL”?
Comment by Ronan — June 27, 2008 @ 7:08 am
Could someone please enlighten me as to what the offering is? Is this referring to an offer of divorce?
Comment by zehill — June 27, 2008 @ 7:25 am
“Traditional Marriage” indeed.
Comment by Phouchg — June 27, 2008 @ 7:27 am
So, polyandry = adultery?
And so much for the “it wasn’t about sex” defense. It may not have been about the gratification of licentious, base desires, but plural wives are clearly “give” for the purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth, no?
Comment by Brad Kramer — June 27, 2008 @ 7:35 am
Doesn’t this clause provide the “out” for polyandry, Brad?
Comment by zehill — June 27, 2008 @ 7:47 am
Oh boy. Actually, Ronan, the video is great. It made me smile again after reading the excerpted D&C 132, when I realized how much it sucks to be a woman.
And being not-sealed-to-my-spouse, I’m totally screwed anyway. Next time you see me I’ll be running around after all of you with a feather duster and offering you a tray of freshly baked morsels while I massage your feet.
Comment by meems — June 27, 2008 @ 7:54 am
Yeah, polyandry is okay if you’ve been appointed to be with the other guy. Let’s just think of this way: women are property.
Comment by meems — June 27, 2008 @ 7:56 am
Sorry. I’m feeling extraordinarily grouchy today.
Comment by meems — June 27, 2008 @ 7:57 am
meems–did you see NO’s post over at FMH about traditional marriage?
The virginity thing is the part I find most irritating–it’s disheartening to think that once you’ve had sex your value as a person is somehow changed.
Comment by kristine N — June 27, 2008 @ 8:08 am
re the video: The mushroom cloud for those who marry outside the covenant was a nice touch! (go to 3:35) Real subtle guys…
Comment by sister blah 2 — June 27, 2008 @ 8:08 am
My husband can have second wife when I get one…… make of this comment what you will.
Comment by A.J. — June 27, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Can I reject polygamy as the doctrine of men while still keeping the eternal covenant part of this revelation?
Comment by Bro. Jones — June 27, 2008 @ 8:31 am
The more I read Genesis, the more convinced I become that the modern equivalent of the “works of Abraham” is not polygamy, but surrogate motherhood.
Comment by DH — June 27, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Steve,
Man, why couldn’t you have chosen something a little less contentious and blood-letting? Like, say, re-fighting the battle of Gettysburg. I haven’t got the energy for this one!
Comment by SC Taysom — June 27, 2008 @ 8:44 am
one man, one woman.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Might these concubines include David’s homosexual relationship with Jonathan about which Pinsky speculates in The Life of David? Jonathan certainly seems to be given David of the Lord.
Comment by Apricot K — June 27, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Steve (#18) - That is consistent with my copy of the D&C:
“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”
Where’s the firestorm?
Comment by zehill — June 27, 2008 @ 9:09 am
Sure, assuming the Gospel Principles manual has any weight in the eternal scheme of things.
Comment by Peter LLC — June 27, 2008 @ 9:12 am
That video was used in Seminary? All I ever got was filmstrips and the occasional Johnny Lingo on VHS.
Comment by Kari — June 27, 2008 @ 9:31 am
#8, no, there’s no out. Joseph Smith’s marriages clearly violated the revelation. Note the crucial conditions:
…if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified…
Plural wives thus need to be virgins who are vowed to no other man. Polyandry violated this rule, as did plural marriage of widows. The only part of this revelation that was not taken seriously during Joseph Smith’s life and throughout the rest of the 19th century was the part that imposed restrictions on men’s marriage options.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 9:35 am
That video is funny. Why are the scripture reading boys lying on their stomachs? is this to cover any, ahem, interest they have in this revelation?
Also, I love the modesty of the polo kid.
Comment by amri — June 27, 2008 @ 9:47 am
JNS: but what about the other revelation of the angel with the sword that told JS to marry other mens’ wives while they were gone on missions?
Comment by SteveS — June 27, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Someday I’ll have my second annointing and no longer have to worry about sin or transgression.
Comment by Kari — June 27, 2008 @ 9:52 am
SteveS, right, that’s not canon, is it? In any case, Smith told Hyrum and others that he’d received the above revelation at least as early as Kirtland. So do we have contradictory commandments, or just one commandment that was violated? Etc.
Other men followed suit, of course. Without even claiming to see angels with swords.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Even after your second annointing, Kari, you may still want to worry. Being “destroyed in the flesh” and “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan” doesn’t sound very pleasant, despite the promised redemption.
Comment by zehill — June 27, 2008 @ 9:57 am
That pesky angel with the sword kept coming back, too, if we are to believe the accounts. But I understand what you mean about the canon vs. non-canon thing. But lets remember that D&C 132 didn’t enter the canon until the 1876 ed.
Comment by SteveS — June 27, 2008 @ 9:59 am
#5 zehill, I don’t think we know for sure what the offer was, but my working theory is that Emma had argued that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that if Joseph could have multiple wives she could have multiple husbands. [Not that she really wanted another husband; she was trying to get him to see the situation from her perspective.] And I think Joseph told her ok, on the assumption that she’d never go through with such a thing. But when it started to look like Emma might call his bluff and actually go through with it (perhaps with William Marks), Joseph realized she might be serious and tried to call off the dogs.
Very speculative, of course, but that’s my take on it.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 27, 2008 @ 10:00 am
This whole section was NOT voted into the D&C when Joseph, Brigham and the rest of the Church created it from the Book of Commandments. It was inserted into the D&C by Brigham in 1876….and was purely a compilation of two letters written ostensibly by Joseph Smith earlier….much earlier….to justify his womanizing.
The section that was voted upon by the church, including Joseph, was called Section 111, and which still exists in the Community of Christ’s Doctrine and Covenants, and is the statement that Monogamy is the rule of the Church and that anybody who says otherwise is a LIAR. So, if Joseph approved Section 111, and anybody who disputes that monogamy is the Church’s practice is a LIAR….well, what does that say!?!?
This whole subject is a male fantasy gone crazy, and I would think that Joseph is currently suffering over the harm done to women and the Church of God because of his issues.
Comment by Cynthia — June 27, 2008 @ 10:00 am
It will be but a short season compared to the eternities of exaltation. Like eating my asparagus to get to the lemon meringue pie.
Comment by Kari — June 27, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Interestingly, the relevant section of The Book of the Law of the Lord, which James Strang claimed to translate from the Plates of Laban, seems to embody more the rhetorical ideals of 19th century Mormon polygamy. It certainly has more concern for the rights of widows, women, and virgins entering into plural marriage than LDS D&C 132.
The Book of the Law of the Lord XLIV: 5, 10-13, 15
Comment by John Hamer — June 27, 2008 @ 10:05 am
It’s fine if the church doesn’t want to be mistaken with the FLDS church in Texas. We’re certainly not the same organization. But will the church will ever try to reconcille how the doctrinal basis for eternal marriage is not repealed in OD1? OD1 simply says that we’re not going to practice polygamy….and we’ll adhere to the laws of the land. Statements by the brethren say the same thing….that we don’t practice it, we stopped doing it a long time ago, we ex folks who do it.
I kind of get uncomfortable when the church goes to great lengths like it is to disassociate itself from the practice and those who practice it -because for us, it still seems to be doctrine. OD1 didn’t make the doctrine go away….
Comment by adcama — June 27, 2008 @ 10:06 am
#30 Kevin - I read the speculation that it was a reluctant offer of divorce in the not-so-authoritative Wife No. 19 by Ann Eliza Young who claims this is the view of “Mormon exponents of the Revelation.” I also vaguely remember reading that Joseph and Emma were separated briefly but reconciled (no source).
Comment by zehill — June 27, 2008 @ 10:08 am
#32 - Mmmmm, asparagus. If that’s an accurate comparison, maybe I’ll deliver myself over to those delicious buffetings.
Comment by zehill — June 27, 2008 @ 10:10 am
Kevin,
I’m pretty sure that speculation is discussed in _Mormon Enigma_, too.
Comment by Kaimi — June 27, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Cynthia, I recall that Quinn argues that Smith was out of town when Section 111 was voted on. This was, in his view, a deliberate strategy to get the condemnation of polygamy on the record without having to be present and actually vote on it himself.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Zehill #5, and Kevin #30,
William Marks? Wasn’t it William Law who was to be Emma Smith’s intended? Can’t remember where I read it, but probably either Compton, Newell/Avery, or maybe Brodie. It is mentioned in the Wikipedia article for the Nauvoo Expositer, but with no citation. Seem to recall that William Law was considered attractive, and that Emma was impressed with him.
Of course, to complete the crazy wife-swapping circle, Joseph Smith suppossedly tried to marry William Law’s wife, Jane Law. Law claimed that when he confronted his wife, she told him that Smith had “asked her to give him half her love; she was at liberty to keep the other half for her husband.” When William and Jane balked, was Emma and a “player to be named later” thrown in to sweeten the offer?
Of course, all of this would make a wonderful adults-only HBO series.
Comment by Matt Thurston — June 27, 2008 @ 10:47 am
I particularly liked the latin mass setting used for the film’s soundtrack.
Oh seminary…
Comment by JaneW — June 27, 2008 @ 10:53 am
re: 9 Hah, I’ll show you totally screwed under this theological regime, meems. Come find me up there and I’ll help you with the Hors D’oeuvres platters. “Crabcake, Steve and Ronan?”
Comment by MikeInWeHo — June 27, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Mike, I can think of no one better to handle my celestial catering than you and your peeps.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Yeah, it may have been William Law I was thinking of. William somebody. And Kaimi, I think I picked up this idea from Newell/Avery, so thanks for mentioning Mormon Enigma.
Anyway, it’s one of those conversations I would pay a princely sum to have been a fly on the wall for!
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 27, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Verily, I say unto [Joseph]: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith,…
It’s not to hard see where those nutso BYU guys get the idea that they can receive revelation on behalf of women about being their future spouse.
Comment by sister blah 2 — June 27, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
not to hard see -> not hard to see
See, this passage is making me so upset I can’t even construct sentences!
Comment by sister blah 2 — June 27, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Righto, Steve. Celestial Beings Who Know choose caterers who can make a non-alcoholic cosmo.
And a mojito, if possible.
Comment by Kaimi — June 27, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
I think our consciousness is so saturated with sex that we can’t imagine anything else at work. A man desires to ‘take another virgin’, well, that must be sex and only sex because what else could motivate such a thing. I think we have _no real idea_, I repeat, _no real idea_, about what interpersonal relations might be like in the worlds to come, except that at their best they will be interpersonal and based on things like love, mutual and perfect understanding and enjoyment - and so my project is to work on those things.
Just like the polygamists did, we project our own _exact_ structures and sentiments on to the affair. Just like we do to just about everything else. I doubt if we can know or learn anything about it at all while, individaully, this is our project. And, collectively, mum is going to be the word for a long long time.
I think this section is most like a cipher. The most interesting sentence in it is this “And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present …” You know, the silence is deafening. Taking a look around, though, I get an inkling of why God might be of a disposition to let us squirm.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
I think I’d rather be in the kitchen with Mike and his peeps.
Comment by Tracy M — June 27, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Joseph used polygamy as an Abrahamic test for many people. I think it is interesting that it still functions that way for a lot of people today. An Abrahamic test must, by definition, defy explanation and require something that seems on its face to be evil. Although many people are ready to write it all off to Joseph’s womanizing and overblown libido, I’m not ready to stack my righteousness up against Joseph’s.
Comment by Jacob J — June 27, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Mike and meems, a rousing game of persecution poker, is it? I fold.
Thomas, most of the conversation here isn’t about the next life, but rather about the acts and motives of very specific people who are historically knowable. If you want to claim that Joseph Smith was not motivated by sex at all in his practice of polygamy, go ahead. I can’t think of very many historians who would find your argument helpful, and it just doesn’t seem to me to fit the historical record. About the best I can do in this regard is to say that he probably wasn’t motivated only by sex.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
I would rather try the ministering angel thing than be picked out of a line up for potential wives and then be sealed by proxy to someone I don’t even know. I am not sure that could happen but the general tone of the scripture makes me think it is possible.
Comment by Noray — June 27, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
JNS,
I know that this isn’t about the next life. I’m most interested in why people can’t get past this -why it must remain a firestorm. You’ll understand that I’m never all that interested in what may or may not be helpful to historians. I’ll leave the scholarship to scholars, for the most part. I generally admire, or not, at a distance.
What I addressed was the emotional assumption that this “must be sex and only sex.” I try to be a little subtle, JNS. I generally don’t include qualifiers unless they are important to what I’m trying to say.
I don’t see anything wrong with sex being part of the motivation for polygamy. I suspect that it is a major motivation - it would be for me. It isn’t really a problem for me that there is an erotic element in most everything we do. I think that making sex and only sex of it, however, exhibits a lack of imagination, and is unduly reductive and dissmissive of chaps who we know could think their way around religious issues with insight that transcended what happened in their pants.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
There sure is a lot of destroying going on there, mostly of the wimmins.
But it’s interesting to know the history of its inclusion in the D&C.
Comment by Norbert — June 27, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Thanks for the firestorm, Steve. There was some new information for me in the various comments, for which I’m grateful. Polygamy has been a major stumbling block for me. I cannot define it without including the word ADULTER. Thanks, various bloggers, for the information on the first Section 111, and for the details on when and how section 132 was cannonized.
So, is anyone on BCC going to remember that today, Friday June 27th, is the anniversary of Joseph Smith’s death?
Comment by Margaret Young — June 27, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Margaret, I’m still getting over the shock of having it be my oldest daughter’s 16th birthday - that she is on a date right now. I’m enjoying this thread, but my brain is elsewhere.
Comment by Ray — June 27, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Margaret,
Thanks for the reminder about the anniversary of the martyrdom. For those that might want to read of the event, here’s a link to D&C 135.
Comment by Jim — June 27, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Can one still be a good Latter-Day Saint is she/he believes that Section 132 is not a revelation from God, but, instead, a rather self-evident attempt on the part of Joseph Smith to rationalize (to both himself and others) his extramarital sexual liaisons?
Similarly:
Can one still be a good Latter-Day Saint if she/he teaches his/her children that women are every bit the equals of men (as in 1:1), and that polygamy reduces woman to a status that is unequal and therefore not of God?
Speaking hypothetically, of course . . .
Comment by Antonio Parr — June 27, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Antonio Parr:
For Q1: That’s a tough one. I’d say yes, but it’s a tough one.
Q2: that’s easy. Yes.
Comment by Matt W. — June 27, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
I think there is no way for us to really understand what was going on without having been there when polygamy was in force. I tend to agree with Jacob J., too, that back then when people had to live it and now when people even think about it, it came and comes down to an issue of faith. No historical or intellectual study will be sufficient to produce the fruits of faith or testimony necessary to accept this part of our history.
It’s made all the harder for us, imo, because 1) we didn’t hear the principle taught (which is one way that the Spirit can confirm truth to us) and 2) we aren’t living the principle. Since one of the best ways to gain a testimony of a gospel principle is to live it (John 7:17), that puts us at a significant disadvantage (while, of course for most, that is at the same time a significant advantage — I don’t know many people who would jump up and down at the prospect of practicing polygamy).
But still, we can trust that God is and has been leading this work from the beginning through His prophets.
As much as I can understand that this is a tough issue, and as much as I don’t understand about it all, I don’t think it needs to be the firestorm it often is. The Church is true, and it was then, too.
If something distracts as this often does from the simple beauty of the gospel, I say put it on the shelf, Sister Hinckley style. 
Sometimes faith means we have to choose to let go of the things that cause us angst and worry and fear and confusion.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Margaret, the martrydom is what I refer to when I said “Considering the date there were other frontrunners.”
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
although jacobj at new cool thang declared this the England’s worst.argument.ever., I am partial to Eugene England’s take on this.
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
“this the England’s” should read “this England’s”
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
59.
Between polyandry, the many first vision versions, DNA, BoA, etc., my shelf is getting awfully heavy.
Comment by chimera — June 27, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
chimera, Bank of America is a pretty nasty organization, but don’t let them drive you from the Church.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
59
Hang in there. My heart aches for you, but I know it’s possible to get past this. Reinforce your faith with the things you do know, on the things that bring the Spirit. I love what Elder Oaks reminded us of in this last conference…that a testimony comes from the Spirit, not from intellectual pondering. The intellectual pondering can make the shelf heavy. The Lord through His Spirit can make your burden light. (Not that intellectual pondering in and of itself is bad, but if the fruits of that exercise are not good, then it might be time to find a different approach to searching and seeking.)
I know this because I have felt it. People may not really believe this of me, but my active brain could easily get bogged down in the understandings of human beings and their attempts to analyze (or sometimes undermine) our faith. It sometimes has! I have sometimes had to work hard for months to allow myself to feel the Spirit rather than let my brain and doubts such as these have sway. (There is nothing on your list of which I am not aware.) The more I trust the simple message as taught in the scriptures and by our prophets, the lighter the shelf becomes, and the easier it is to let it be. I have not found peace by focusing more on the things that bring questions, I have found it by focusing more on the pure and simple truths and teachings of the gospel.
I hope you can find the peace you ache for. I know it’s possible, but my experience has been that it takes choosing what to nurture in your heart and mind. And sometimes it takes time. And lots of trust in the Lord. In the end, only He can make that shelf lighter, for you know as well as I do that the opinions of people on these topics vary greatly and often only add to the confusion and weight of the shelf.
Godspeed in your journey.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
oops…I pointed to my own comment. I hope it’s obvious that that was directed at chimera.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I came across an interesting example of the tension that still remains over separating the doctrine out of D&C 132 and the teaching of polygamy. While my wife and I were preparing for marriage, we were reading an LDS book that had TONS of questions to ask each other in order to come to a better understanding of our future spouse. One of the questions that I was supposed to ask my wife was something along the lines of the following:
“If the principles of polygamy as recorded in D&C 132 were restored today by the Prophet, would you be willing to live it?”
My wife’s answer was a clear no, and so was mine, but I think it does tug on a tension that is still present.
Comment by Ben — June 27, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
I also wonder about how we treat polygamy as compared to how we treat the priesthood restriction: both are uncomfortable and are practices we try to distance ourselves from. However, many believing members (including myself) don’t want to fully claim humanistic means for polygamy merely because we have a recorded revelation concerning it. Do you think we would be a lot more accepting of calling polygamy a “failed marriage experiment” (to loosely quote Compton) if it wasn’t written down? Does the mere act of recording something a prophet says justifying a practice in biblical verbiage make it more difficult to question?
Comment by Ben — June 27, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
I appreciate comments by Thomas (#47) and Jacob J. (#49) because they are so markedly different from the way I think.
I think Abrahamic tests of faith, and much of the verses excerpted here from D&C 132 are flat out nutso. (And that is being kind.)
But Thomas’s and Jacob’s approach is one of humility, of extending the benefit of the doubt, of trying to extract some lesson from thorny problems.
All good.
And yet how far do we utilize such an approach before it would be wiser to just chuck the story altogether and move on? How far does Joseph have to go before we might want to “stack our righteousness” up against his and say, “Sorry, I don’t agree with you, not in this case”? Evidently, asking for the hand of one’s wife is not far enough. What about murder? Not far enough either (see Abraham).
Isn’t the deeper lesson here about the limitations of human prophets, and not the limitations of us weak-minded children who cannot understand God’s ways?
Maybe the “defeaning silence” from God is because Joseph was nuts, and our resulting “squirming” is is the correct response of our conscience, or God’s “still small voice” or way of telling us that we are right to squirm.
Comment by Matt Thurston — June 27, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Interesting thoughts both Ben and Matt. Matt, your question: “and yet how far do we utilize such an approach before it would be wiser to just chuck the story altogether and move on?” is tough. Misapplied, it could gut all faith.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
I wonder sometimes about the “rockstar” effect of popularity coming into play here. One needs not look very far to find examples of how charismatic people with talents for leadership or artistic ability easily garner devoted followers. The stars themselves often don’t know what to do with fame, but it takes a huge amount of self-control, I’m betting, to not misuse charismatic power to achieve personal ends. JS is reported to have been extremely charismatic, and even if the women he propositioned to enter into polygynous relationships with weren’t necessarily the ones fawning over him, there were probably others who did. This may have served to fan his ego, and it could have been very difficult for JS to resist the urge to entertain. It would be difficult for me. Just a thought.
Comment by SteveS — June 27, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Guys, I need to say that it would be in poor taste for us to defame the Prophet of the Restoration on this thread, particularly given that today is the anniversary of his martrydom. Let’s try and be circumspect.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Regarding the Abrahamic test, remember that this test was required of the Prophet (meaning Abraham), not for the rank and file. If Joseph was really Testing the flock, seems a little harsh.
I have a hard time with the whole Abraham - Isaac thing as it is.
I’m actually a bit surprised at the whole of the comments here - I expected more people to defend Joseph. Instead, I’m feeling like there’s sort of a tacit embarrassment of this section of the D&C.
(Also, I’m a little sad that this is the last of the Firestorms - it’s something I look forward to on Fridays.)
Comment by FHL — June 27, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I’ve shared this elsewhere, but I think it might be pertinent here.
When I was growing up discussions of Polygamy focused on when we would have to live it again, rather than if. I firmly believed that I had to prepare myself mentally, and emotionally to share my (then, future) husband. No one was even willing to let the issue rest at ‘we just don’t live it now’ they always had to tack on the ‘fact’ that the commandment was not removed, and that once the world was ready we could get on with it. I don’t know if the idea came predominantly from my parents, my primary teachers, seminary teachers, whatever- I got it from someplace though.
After I got married I spent a lot of time and energy trying to contort myself into being ready to accept a sister wife*, because the next best thing to living the doctrine is being ready to live the doctrine. As a mental exercise it ripped me to shreds. When I finally allowed myself to believe that I might never, ever have to be in a polygamous relationship I was so relieved.
Anyhow, I think that you can draw a line between those who expect to have to live polygamy, and those who don’t. Those people, who expect it, who are just waiting for the other shoe to drop, there is an urgency in their questions. This cannot be put on the shelf for them. They don’t have the luxury of emotional distance- and it is hell.
*I feel inclined to mention that my husband had nothing to do with this. Polygamy isn’t even on his radar, let alone something he looked forward to. He couldn’t understand why I was so fixated on it because he literally never even thought about it.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 27, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Maybe the “defeaning silence” from God is because Joseph was nuts, and our resulting “squirming” is is the correct response of our conscience, or God’s “still small voice” or way of telling us that we are right to squirm.
I think there is more to this to consider. We should all be squirmy because we aren’t supposed to want polygamy. It is the exception, not the rule (a la Jacob 2). We should want to be monogamous, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that we struggle with it now, or that people struggled with it then.
I also think our conscience can be offended when we spend too much time focusing on things that are hard to understand, a la Jacob 4.
I also wonder how one can think this can be dismissed as just Joseph Smith’s craziness when the principle has both OT and BoM support, as well as continued recognition of its reality and revelation base by current leaders. There’s a whole lot there to dismiss than just Joseph Smith, and that to me violates conscience as well.
I guess I don’t understand why some can’t be both sensitive to the difficulty of polygamy, even squirming at the concept (as we should in our time) and yet accept it as something that had its time, just as has been mentioned and evidenced in scripture (ancient and latter-day)?
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
“I guess I don’t understand why some can’t be both sensitive to the difficulty of polygamy, even squirming at the concept (as we should in our time) and yet accept it as something that had its time, just as has been mentioned and evidenced in scripture (ancient and latter-day)?”
Because we believe in eternal truths, and we believe the family is the most important thing in the world, and so anything that would be as seemingly destructive and horrible to family and so at odds with our current doctrine is hard to see as ever being divine.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Anyhow, I think that you can draw a line between those who expect to have to live polygamy, and those who don’t. Those people, who expect it, who are just waiting for the other shoe to drop, there is an urgency in their questions. This cannot be put on the shelf for them. They don’t have the luxury of emotional distance- and it is hell.
But if that exercise is based on a falsehood, wouldn’t it be good to stop the exercise? I know of nothing in our current teachings that would suggest that this is necessary. Quotes from the past when people did need to accept the principle because it was being taught are not binding on us today. I have never heard a leader in my lifetime suggest that I need to be ready to live this principle to be a worthy member. So I think that mental exercise is akin to a kind of spiritual and mental self-torture that is sadly unnecessary.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
M&M,
It’s easy.
1. The OT is a terrible, misogynist book with thoroughly f*ed up ideas about marriage and relationships that have no place at all in modern society.
2. Section 132 looks like it may be the result of Joseph Smith’s personal desire to restore polygamy. (With whatever underlying motivations might exist there.)
Not so hard, is it? Are either one of those wrong?
Comment by Kaimi — June 27, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
and so anything that would be as seemingly destructive and horrible to family
In my family, this was essential to us all being here as part of our family. Is it all destructive?
I understand the struggle, but I think there is more to it that is often not considered. Think of what family means for many who are descended from the early people who practiced this. I may not have been born into the Church were it not for polygamy. I feel connections with a large number of people because of this principle. There is much here that anything but destructive and horrible, and I have lots of positive stories from my family that would suggest it’s not all horror and pain even for those who participated in it. Of course there were hard things, but it’s not all the negativity that people want it to be, not even for those who lived it.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Just as an aside….
For those who say we cannot state our feelings on this horrible subject today because Joseph was killed on this day, well, we are actually trying to be respectful. It’s just that individuals create fallout when they allow themselves to think they are infallible….and I think that on this matter, Joseph made a BIG FAT MISTAKE. I have heard he regretted it and expressed that regret toward the time of his murder.
As for the rest, do we stop reading the Psalms because they were written by a murdering adulterer? No, it is perfectly possible that one can say: Joseph was a prophet on many things–especially when he was the seer of the Book of Mormon. He got into trouble when he stated that EVERYTHING he felt or wrote was God speaking directly to us. Witnesses such as Pratt, Whitmer and others talk about “revelations” that went terribly wrong because Joseph allowed others to force “questions to the Lord”–such as Hyrum’s Canadian publishing funds debacle. We must be very discerning in these matters and not take every word as gospel until the Spirit reveals it to us. And the Spirit has NOT revealed to me anything about polygamy that would say that it’s a true principle.
Comment by Cynthia — June 27, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Kaimi,
It really isn’t that simple to me at all. To me, your line of reasoning violates my conscience and faith far more than accepting polygamy as true for its time.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
“I expected more people to defend Joseph.”
My posts were an attempt to defend Joseph. I simply think he knew a lot more than we do. Everything in my experience suggests this. Whenever I read him, I learn from him. He can teach me, I rarely find points at which I feel that I can teach him. I find his understanding, especially in the last years of his life, approaching exhaustive. I love the fact that we get to see _such a person_ in all his human frailty - but I think that discarding so much as a matter of saying he couldn’t keep his zipper zipped says a lot more about us than it does about him. When it comes to an issue where the _contemporary_ zeitgeist is blowing rather hard, and emotions are so strained, my overriding tendancy is to side with the prophet and against what seems to me a very subjective and time-bound, if very powerful, personal and meanginful response.
I think there is some language in the section that is very 1830s, and may suggest to our ears ideas ripe for abuse. As happened with the endowment, I think that language could be modified. I wouldn’t want the whole thing thrown out, though. Lest we become guilty of, you know, LDSism.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
m&m, I’m sure you realize there is decidedly more to family than the production of offspring. While producing lots of children is definitely a strong point for polygamist households (as your existence tends to illustrate!), there is every indicator that in every other way, polygamy was utterly destructive for family relationships in the vast majority of cases. In Sacred Loneliness is a testament to this, and I would hope you’ve read it. Yes there are plenty of positive anecdotes from that era, but they are a distinct minority.
Here’s a question to illustrate the point: do you support polygamy as practiced by the FLDS? If not, why not? If the answer to why not is something like “because polygamy is no longer the revealed law of the Lord for us,” that would tend to suggest that the social benefits you’d like to find in polygamy are illusory, and the reason anyone ever did it was because of commandment and not because it was good for families. Attempts to justify it by saying “it wasn’t all bad” are lame ducks.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Steve,
I can understand m&m’s feelings. I’ve got polygamist ancestors as well, including my maternal Grandfather who was raised in a home that was watched by federal marshals in Idaho in an effort to find my GGF. I truly appreciate the sacrifices made by those folks, and try to understand them as best as I can.
Polygamy caused problems, no question. I also believe in a limited time and place for it, and not as the celestial ideal, but as a sometimes necessary corollary. But modern marriage causes problems, kids cause problems, lots of things cause problems in our relationships. I find some of the justifications and defenses of the practice from the 19th century strange and unconvincing, but I am not ready to read it as the horrible disruptive influence that some would make it out to be. Certainly some of it was hard, and some horrible. But I’ve also seen marriages in my immediate circle of friends and acquaintances that would qualify as horrible, but for different reasons.
Michael Quinn, writing about post-manifesto polygamy, made the final comment somewhere along the lines that his job as a historian was to try and understand these folks, doing the best they could under difficult circumstances, many better saints than he, and his job was not to judge them. If I have the full quote here at work, I’ll post it. It’s pertinent.
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Her is the Quinn Quote:
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Sorry, should be “Here is the Quinn quote:”
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
kevin, sure it’s pertinent. And marriage today isn’t perfect. But polygamy was worse, and I think your justification by comparison here is a bit weak, to be honest. Saying polygamy is something terrible doesn’t diminish the sacrifices of pioneer ancestors or demean the existence of many Mormon families. I see no need to defend the practice at all. It was a commandment at the time, and that’s why they did it. It is no longer a commandment, and we should feel no fear to look back at the practice of polygamy and see it as something really, really bad for family relationships. I feel no more need to defend polygamy than I do to defend the priesthood ban. Do I demean those who enforced the ban by saying it was a destructive thing?
Let’s not let respect for our ancestor’s sacrifices blind us to the reality of something very bad. This sentiment is entirely compatible with the Quinn excerpt.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
The social benefits alone are certainly not the reason I think polygamy was not a mistake, although I think they are often overlooked. (Jacob 2 addresses the reason why God sometimes brings this principle back. I realize many people don’t find that a satisfactory reason, but then that just provides another something that must be dismissed in order to call this a mistake. If raising up seed is indeed a legitimate reason God might institute polygamy (and since I believe the BoM, I take that as legitimate), then it makes a lot more sense to have that principle at the beginning of the restoration than at any other time. It also suggests that it’s not something meant to be longstanding.)
I do ultimately go back to the point that it’s a matter of faith to me. I liked how Thomas phrased it: “When it comes to an issue where the _contemporary_ zeitgeist is blowing rather hard, and emotions are so strained, my overriding tendancy is to side with the prophet and against what seems to me a very subjective and time-bound…response” — even as I understand the emotion involved. Prophets and apostles beyond Joseph Smith lived this principle, too. Prophets today continue to recognize it as something that had its place for divine purposes. On something this significant, I personally can’t believe that they could have had the measure of the Spirit and divine guidance and approbation they did if they had been living in sin.
But no logic will convince. When we talk of matters of conscience, I simply cannot dismiss prophetic and scriptural position at that level of consistency without violating mine. Clearly others see it differently. That’s the beauty of agency — we get to each figure out where to draw these lines and what brings peace of conscience. And we certainly won’t convince each other otherwise, right?
p.s. I don’t jump into these conversations to convince people to believe what I believe, but I do like lurkers to know that there are different points of view on these topics. You don’t have to like the idea of polygamy to accept that it had its place. And you can realize it had its problems. I’m certainly not blind to that, either.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Steve, you’re forgetting about the biological benefits of polygamy, though. Please recall that polygamy was “instrumental in producing a more perfect type of manhood mentally and physically, as well as restoring human life to its former longevity [i.e., the lifespans recorded in the Old Testament]” (Eliza R. Snow, “Sketch of My Life,” pg. 17), that it was “a means that God has introduced to check the physical corruption and decline of our race” (Apostle Amasa Lyman, in a speech reported in the 19 April 1866 Deseret News), that it produced “a more vigorous, healthy, and well developed offspring” (Apostle Charles W. Penrose, in a piece published in the 10 Aug. 1867 Millennial Star), and that “plurality of wives, as practiced here, produces a higher condition of physiological existence” (Apostle Albert Carrington in a Deseret News editorial from 29 March 1866).
In other words, we’re going all wrong in thinking about only the spiritual, moral, sexual, and spousal aspects of polygamy. We ought to be considering the eugenic aspects as well.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Polygamy caused problems, no question. I also believe in a limited time and place for it, and not as the celestial ideal, but as a sometimes necessary corollary. But modern marriage causes problems, kids cause problems, lots of things cause problems in our relationships. I find some of the justifications and defenses of the practice from the 19th century strange and unconvincing, but I am not ready to read it as the horrible disruptive influence that some would make it out to be. Certainly some of it was hard, and some horrible. But I’ve also seen marriages in my immediate circle of friends and acquaintances that would qualify as horrible, but for different reasons.
Thanks for saying better than I could (or did).
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
The idea “polygamy was hard, but so is regular marriage” is utterly bewildering to me. Please do not assail my senses with such comparisons again lest the comment be destroyed.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Steve, exercise is hard, so let’s invade Zimbabwe.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
M&M (77)- I have too much faith in how nice you actually are to believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. In my mind the impending return of polygamy was not a falsehood it was the truth and there is still nothing in church literature that directly contradicts that idea.
You may have never had a leader suggest that you prepare to live polygamy, but I did -local leaders are still ‘leaders’ and mine may have been out of line, but when you’re a kid you take what your teachers say at face value.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 27, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Good point, JNS, and often overlooked.
For instance, I attribute at least 37% of the success of BYU football in the late 80s and early 90s to polygamy. If there’s no Brigham polygamy, there’s no Steve Young. If there’s no Steve Young, is there a Ty Detmer or a Robbie Bosco? I don’t think so.
These benefits should not be underestimated.
Comment by Kaimi — June 27, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Starfoxy, let me second your experience. I also was raised with the idea that polygamy would be restored and we would all have to live it, presumably while adjusting to United Order economic institutions on our handcart trek to Missouri. And, hey, nothing I was ever told in church ever contradicted any of those ideas. They were a real burden on my faith.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
JNS,
That’s the crap that I was saying I was uncomfortable with. I am glad that I am the husband of one wife, and don’t have to try to live in polygamy. I don’t think I could do it. It was harder, and it is not what I consider the celestial ideal. It certainly caused a lot of problems along the way. In my mind, whatever purpose it served is past, and no longer a requirement. The vestiges of the principle are still out there in the sealings of widowers to new wives. I find it in direct contradiction of Jacob’s teachings in the BoM.
I just feel uncomfortable with the overt hostility towards it. I get the impression that many are now putting it into the same category as the PH ban, which I am not ready to do.
I really was trying to stay out of this. If this is where the firestorms have led, perhaps it is best to let them end.
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Steve, JNS, I guess what I am trying to say is that I thought I was on the liberal side of this, in not wanting polygamy to return, and not seeing it as morally or spiritually superior to total fidelity to one spouse. With so much room to one side of me, you have amazed me my making me feel like a fundamentalist buffoon.
Buffoon, perhaps, but I’m still farther your way on this than what I perceive the mainstream member to be.
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
“the vestiges of the principle are still out there in the sealings of widowers to new wives.”
kinda-sorta, no? I mean, what conclusions can we really draw from the current policy? Not sure this amounts to The Principle…
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Wait a minute here! I’m going to have to lug a handcart to Missouri and have some extra wives in this mess? How come they don’t tell you that in the Discussions?
Comment by Tracy M — June 27, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
When I read the journals of my pioneer ancestors who practiced polygamy, I get a pretty good picture of people who were forged in the furnace of affliction in ways I can’t begin to fathom. I read of men who left wives and children for years to preach the Gospel - and wives who blessed and honored them for it. I read of people who gained insights into their relationship with their God that rock my complacency and astound my mind.
In Sacred Loneliness is a wonderful book, but it doesn’t give the fully balanced picture of all those who didn’t live in sacred loneliness. Polygamy tested people in almost unimaginable ways, and I am deeply grateful to live now rather than then - when I don’t have to face it personally. However, imho, to call it a “big fat mistake” is to simplify it to a caricature - something that the Bloggernacle abhors when dealing with other complicated social and sexual issues. The recent threads on gay marriage are proof of that, since one of the strongest reactions (correctly) was to condemn the oversimplification of such a complicated topic.
If we are willing to grant that type of complexity to one discussion, I believe we should be willing to do so to this one. After all, labeling it as “big fat mistake” stereotypes everyone who accepted it and followed it and sacrificed so deeply for it as deluded fools - since they paid so dearly for a “big fat mistake”.
On this one, I have no problem admitting that I see my glass, darkly.
Comment by Ray — June 27, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
p.s. you’re no buffoon, man! We love you.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Btw, my comment was not pointed at Steve’s comment on how destructive it was for many. I don’t argue with that. It was directed strictly at the idea that it was a mistake.
Comment by Ray — June 27, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Steve,
“The Principle” is your capitalization, not mine. I am not one of those, waiting for the other shoe to drop, so I can pick up the practice again. Let’s all take a deep breath over this.
I will admit I don’t understand it. It’s definitely a shelf item for me, just more personal because of knowing my Grandfather lived through a portion of those times.
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
kevinf, I’m right with you in not wanting to put the entire practice of polygamy in the same category with the racial policies. In particular, I don’t want to do this out of respect for the persecuted minority in America that still retains a belief in these ideas. That minority is, of course, correct to say that plural marriage was taught by 19th century prophets as an eternal principle and as a prerequisite for exaltation. That we don’t hold to these ideas is fine with me; I have no interest in practicing polygamy. But I don’t want to condemn those who have or who do.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Starfoxy,
I’m not trying to be obtuse; perhaps I just wasn’t being clear. I don’t disagree that polygamy is not a falsehood, and I respect the fervor with which people who believe that want to come to grips with it. The falsehood, though, is that somehow we all have to be ready to live it tomorrow. We need not fret about the future, no matter what it might bring. Fear always brings frustration and lack of peace; fear and faith are antitheses of each other.
I am sorry you were taught something that I believe to be out of line. I understand trusting local leaders. But in the end, we should always check what local leaders teach with what current prophets teach, particularly on matters of general doctrine. Their stewardship is not to teach general doctrine that hasn’t been taught by living prophets. I can’t recall ever hearing a prophet say that I need to like the idea of polygamy to be a good member or a good woman.
We could all torture ourselves with “what if the prophet were to ask this?” kinds of mental games. While I think we should be ready to follow them with whatever they ask, the best way to assure that is to follow them with what they are teaching and asking now (a la Pres. Eyring’s current message.) We prepare for the future by following in faith in the present. We don’t have to want to live in the past or be able to predict the future to do that.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
I think there is a big gap with lots of room between saying “it was a mistake” and saying “it was a commandment, thank God it is over.”
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
Ray, if you want a more balanced treatment, I recommend Hardy’s “Doing the Works of Abraham.” The fact is, stories in which female participants hated polygamy seem to outnumber the other kind in the documentary record — once we exclude public speeches. But there are a variety of perspectives, certainly.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Steve, I took a deep breath, and on second thought, when Elder Wirthlin was talking about piccolos in the great symphony of the Church, I claimed for myself as a bassoon. I was momentarily confused.
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
I echo comments by Kaimi in #78 and Steve in #83 and #87.
Comment by Matt Thurston — June 27, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
I agree, Steve - which is why I added #102.
Comment by Ray — June 27, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
They don’t call em firestorms for nothing, folks.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
Starfoxy, I hear you there.
Polygamy is alive and well in our sealings; in certain respects it’s far more alive in current doctrine and practice than the much more recent priesthood-temple ban. We’ve started to distance ourselves from relatively recent teachings on race by categorizing them as folklore. But as a church we’re not making any similar gestures when it comes to polygamy. We’ve basically suspended it for this life only.
Particularly in the language used in D&C 132 that Steve cites above, where only men are fully human agents and women are little more than property, it has been one of several agonizing problems have sometimes caused me profound misery and mistrust in God’s justice and mercy. Is God truly no respecter of persons? Is God good? Such questions are so central to religious life on every level that putting them on the shelf isn’t a possibility. The entire structure of religious life demands some central, fundamental faith in or conviction of God’s goodness. Something like polygamy–particularly in the language of D&C 132–can really call that into question.
Comment by ZD Eve — June 27, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
LOL Eve, tell me how you feel about 132!
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
kevinf told me to say that he thinks it was a commandment, but thank God it’s over.
Comment by bizarro kevin — June 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
I may be laboring under a misapprehension, but I have heard that the church is now allowing (at times) a widow to be sealed to a second husband, assuming that these arrangements will all be worked out in the millennium. I think that this adds another layer of complexity to the issue of post-mortal polygamy.
Comment by Latter-day Guy — June 27, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
kevinf, don’t worry. I’m the resident buffoon here. (Or am I a buffonnette?)
Should I mention that I, too, am grateful to be commanded to be monogamous?
Starfoxy, I realize just now that I misread your comment. You said: “In my mind the impending return of polygamy was not a falsehood it was the truth and there is still nothing in church literature that directly contradicts that idea.”
Pres. Eyring said that one way we can know we should rivet our attention on prophetic teachings is when they are repeated. Elder Oaks said that we focus on what is consistent and current. I have never heard any kind of prophetic teaching like this in my lifetime. Have you?
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
And ZD Eve, I don’t disagree with the challenges this can face. I think sometimes people think people like me throw around the idea of faith like it’s a piece of candy that one can just pop into the mouth and feel better. I know it’s not anything like that. Going to faith in the very nature of God is exactly the kind of faith that I’m talking about. I don’t sit back without questions on topics like these. I wrestle with them, too, and, as I have mentioned elsewhere, with other more personal struggles. But the only answer that brings peace takes me on the path of faith — in God and in His prophets. No other source, no other approach, makes it possible for my shelf to handle the questions that do come. And I think they come for most — if not all — of us.
Just wanted to say that, because I don’t want anyone to think that I don’t understand how hard this can be. I think we all have our heart-stretching things that test our faith and the strength of our shelves. And I empathize with the struggle…even if my specifics sometimes differ.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
Steve, God bless and keep D&C 132…far away from the authorized canon of revealed scripture.
Oops, a little late for that. Well, when we start de-canonizing, I move we start there. Every Sunday school lesson and even every seminary lesson I’ve ever seen on it radically reinterprets the polygamy right out of it anyway and turns it into a generic prenup counseling: pick a good spouse, marry him or her in the temple, and let your marriage be one of patriarchy, equality, fertility, and continuing courtship (incompatible as all those might be!)
Comment by ZD Eve — June 27, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
“Because we believe in eternal truths, and we believe the family is the most important thing in the world, and so anything that would be as seemingly destructive and horrible to family and so at odds with our current doctrine is hard to see as ever being divine.”
I think that if we are taking what we currently think and feel as the final measure of things, we’ve pretty much dug ourselves into a subjective historical hole.
“seemingly destructive and horrible to family ”
I don’t know anything about modern polygamy, really. But it has been my experience to observe ‘polyamorous’ family situations. I was never in one myself - but had some close friends who attemped it. At times, these have been little more than ‘open relationships’, at other times they have been genuine attempts to establish families. I haven’t seen one work - although I wouldn’t want to say that since I’m out of contact with the people involved, I don’t know the final story in at least one case. Sometimes people claimed to be “hard-wired” in such a way that they couldn’t live in another kind of family. Quite often the people involved would be tough in any relationship, and the damage done is mostly notable for the number of people damaged. The difficulties, I think, were probably compunded just because there were more personal vairables involved in those relationships. Still, I have known some people, genuine, open, truthful as they could be, who, I think, circumstances being correct, could make it work and find the something of the happiness they were seeking.
When I first encountered this ‘polyamory’, I had some degree of sympathy for it precisely because I had been a Mormon and had absorbed a childhood with polygamy in the distant background. One of the things these folks always insisted on was that their relationships were based on love and not only on sex. Some cases were much more believable in that regard than others. Later, when I saw the emotional aftermath of these failed experiments in the lives of people I was fond of, I became more cynical towrads it - _at least in the forms and with the people who I observed._
I am open to different forms of family. I think there is a lot of wisdom in keeping families to one maother and father, almost all the time. I mean, it is tough enough, right? But, it doesn’t seem likely that the ‘forever family’ is going to be Mom and Dad and kids.
I am against thsoe things that _are_ destructive to the family. I love Paul’s description heaven as a place where we know as we are known and see as we are seen - and I would add love as we are loved. That seems me as a more important element of family life than the precise structure the family takes.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Oh, it’ll be OK, Tracy. The electric light-up seerstones (DD batteries not included) with the flashing neon reformed Egyptian characters inside will make it all worth it. Also, if you balance an amulet on the end of your divining rod, you can levitate your cattle and handcart. (Might work on the extra wives too, come to think of it….)
Comment by ZD Eve — June 27, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
I heart Eve.
Comment by Kaimi — June 27, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
SteveS (#29) said, “That pesky angel with the sword kept coming back, too, if we are to believe the accounts.”
Yeah, that angel seemed to be really busy during the early 1840s. Among other visits:
“19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose “his position and his life.” Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced.” (In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)
What is the appropriate response to such a statement? This is probably too much to ask an early 19th Century young woman, but wow I wish Zina would have answered:
“Really? An Angel with a Flaming Sword, you say? I’ll tell you what… next time, tell the Angel to swing by my house and…”
(I better stop there… don’t want to get banned.)
Of all the male spouses who lost (or had to share) their wives with Joseph (and later, Brigham or Heber), I think I felt the worst for poor Henry Jacobs, Zina’s first husband. In fact, Henry Jacobs would have made a great subject for a song or lament by Johnny Cash or Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.
Comment by Matt Thurston — June 27, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
That is not a marriage proposal, mind you.
Comment by Kaimi — June 27, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Man, we ARE a peculiar people They weren’t just using clever marketing when they came up with that one.
Comment by Tracy M — June 27, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
“subjective historical hole.”
I know of no other kind, TP.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Whew, Kaimi, you had me scared. I was getting a little nervous picturing Mardell levitating me straight out of my handcart with her amulet-enhanced divining rod.
Comment by ZD Eve — June 27, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
…amulet-enhanced divining rod? Is that anything like a Genuine Third Reich Swizzle Stick?
Comment by Tracy M — June 27, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Don’t worry, Eve, one of the Three Nephites would certainly have saved you so that you could fulfill your true fate of unearthing the Lamanite gold in the Dream Mine.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
additional little thought:
If we were to list my top ten things from the last half of the 19th century that tended to be destructive in Mormon familes, would polygamy een make that list?
(In addition, apologies for the embarrasing spelling and grammar mistakes - I’m doing this when I should probably be doing something else. I should just add this as a sig line to everything I post.)
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
#129, ABSOLUTELY YES, if the list is of LDS practices taught from the pulpit.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Thomas, please make the list.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
“Man, we ARE a peculiar people ”
*snort*
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Good question, Tracy. I think that a Genuine Third Reich Swizzle Stick would have to have the good-evil polarities reversed before it would be suitable for use as a divining rod. But I’m a little rusty on my magic world view, so I’d consult the instructions on the inside of the authenticated swizzle stick package. (Unfortunately, they’re in Reformed Egyptian, but the helpful diagrams look a lot like the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham.)
Wow, JNS! I hereby nominate you for Bloggernacle patriarch. Your blessings would be so exciting!
Comment by ZD Eve — June 27, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
No, I haven’t- which is part of why I’ve allowed myself to believe that it really might not be coming back. Previously I read their silence on this issue as one of restraint stemming from an unpopular truth. Which is to say that, I believed that they weren’t talking about it, not because it isn’t important for us, but because they’d have to tell us the truth (that polygamy is fantastic, eternal and we’re all gonna do it) and the truth would have gotten us in trouble. Everything they said maintained plausible deniability in both directions, which is maddening to me still.
At that time it would have taken the prophet declaring polygamy to be over with a capital O to get me to believe that I didn’t have to worry about it. I am now able to get enough emotional distance to stop torturing myself, but I very vividly remember the heartache it caused me, and how very ineffective ‘just not worrying about it’ or putting it on the shelf was. It’s just like ZD Eve said, you have to have a certain amount of peace with it to be able to set it aside at all because it cuts to the very core of how God relates to women and men.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 27, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Can I be the Bloggernacle evangelist instead? More gender-neutral.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
JNS,
Like I said, I’m no historian.
I would be interested in seeing someone with some real history, and also some objectivity, make the list. Did 19th century Mormon families tend to engender personal happiness? To the degree they did, why? To the degree they didn’t, why? To what extent did monogamous and polygamous relationships differ in this regard?
I wouldn’t mind being pointed at a book, as long as you felt it was the most objective book available on the subject, rather than one with preferred conclusions.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Oh, of course, JNS. My bad. How rigidly patriarchal of me.
[Buries face in shape in peepstone hat.]
Comment by ZD Eve — June 27, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
So according to Joan Roughgarten on the biology of polygyny:
Evolution’s Ranbow.
So far the discussion seems to center on male advantage. Interestingly, many polygyny animal mating systems are female choice systems with males displaying their prowess in one way or the other.
Also, Humans are not oftenconsidered monogamous animals. (See http://blog.behavioralecology.net/2007/04/revisiting-human-non-monogamy/ for an interesting blog on this). Monogamy often appears when males can be really really sure that the offspring they are raising are theirs—such as our church provides! No theological insights here, but I don’t think biology is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Who benefits and who looses in these early polygamous relationships in terms of biology’s bottom line: offspring?
Comment by Steven P — June 27, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Just wanted to point out a few things before Margaret believes certain things are facts when they are not.
Section 132 was added to the version of the D&C printed in 1876, but was presented to and voted upon by the body of the Church on August 29, 1852 where it was accepted as revelation and part of the law of the Church.
Almost all of the revelations in the D&C were recieved between 1829 and 1832. Dates on some of the Sections correlate to when they were written down, not when they were actually revealed by God. Joseph Smith received the revelation in 1831 but was told by God that the time had not come for him to teach it to the Saints, nor for them to practice it. He was told that they would at a later point. The revelation was not written down until July 12, 1843 when Hyrum asked Joseph to dictate the revelation to him word for word.
On August 17th 1835, when the original Doctrine and Covenants was presented to the submitted to the priesthood quorums for their acceptance, and article on marriage was also submitted by W.W. Phelps for inclusion that was published as Section 111 in the D&C for many years. It was not a revelation and was not submitted as one to the brethren. Joseph Smith was out of town at the time visiting the saints in Michigan.
Joseph had shared the revelation with a few close friends and it is assumed that whispers of it had spread through Kirtland, but as he had not been instructed to teach the doctrine yet, those present that day included the article specifying their understanding and then current Church doctrine on marriage…that a man is to have one wife. Joseph did not begin to teach the doctrine to the 12 until the summer of 1841 when they had all returned.
#32-More than just celestial candidates will come forth during the first resurrection of the Lord’s second coming. Nowhere does it equate glory with those who who are subjected to the buffetings of Satan.
Comment by factorus — June 27, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Thomas, again, I think the best and most well-rounded starting-place book on the subject is Hardy’s “Doing the Works of Abraham.” The book is a documentary history, which means that it collects primary sources and presents them with a bit of contextual framing, rather than providing an account mainly in the voice of the historian. This means that many more perspectives are represented than is usually the case in a history book. I highly recommend it as a starting point for this complex topic.
Regarding the question of whether 19th-century Mormon families were happy — well, that’s a gigantic issue. Certainly some of them were. Were polygamous relationships different in this regard? Again, it’s a gigantic question. I think a very solid place to start is looking at poor Henry Jacobs, as Matt Thurston mentioned above. Evidently he and his wife Zina were probably happily married when they were monogamous. When Zina was taken from him by Joseph Smith and then Brigham Young, Jacobs suffered from what seems from the documents he left behind to have been a lifelong emotional crisis. Zina didn’t leave as many sources in this vein, but there are a few suggestions that she felt sorrow as well. Can you imagine going through such a disruption?
Now imagine Emma Smith.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
To repent of my recent light-mindedness and return to the fiery spirit appropriate to these firestorms, I think Starfoxy’s experience nicely illustrates the limitations of the shelf. The shelf’s great for wholly intellectual questions (like when do I get my electric seerstone?) (oops, my repentance is slipping) but as we all know, religion is anything but wholly intellectual.
m&m, I think where I disagree with you is what seems to be your assumption that the path of faith precludes wrestling with difficult issues, or that putting things on the shelf is the only way to exercise faith. The challenges and crises that come to us all include the intellectual/spiritual difficulties of issues like polygamy, as well as the more personal trials you allude to. I don’t think there’s a shelf for the former category any more than there is for the latter. If your child dies, there is no shelf. Neither is there a shelf if your faith in God and the Church is thrown into a radical crisis because of polygamy.
Comment by ZD Eve — June 27, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
FYI, “factorus” = “daproff”, the guy we banned awhile back.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
JNS,
Thanks for the recommendation. Really.
I like the idea that it is a collection of primary sources - though I’d very early on want to know what percentage of primary sources available he used.
I think I prefer to start with the general and take my opnions of the individual cases from that, rather than begin with a specific case and let that color my views of the entire enterprise. I know this is the opposite of the way I often go about things.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
I want a matriarchal blessing from Eve.
Seriously, though — didn’t ERS used to give prophesying-ish blessings to others (particularly sisters)? I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere.
Why no matriarchal blessings now? Does anyone know? (Kevin? J.?)
Comment by Kaimi — June 27, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Thomas, I’d say that Hardy presents maybe 0.5% of available primary sources. What, you want to read 100,000 pages? But the virtue of Hardy’s approach is that he selects sources very broadly and represents most of the major themes I’ve seen in other literature on the subject and in the period primary sources I’ve read.
Regarding your preference for starting with the general and proceeding to the specific: intellectually laudable. Unfortunately, it’s impossible. We lack systematic data on families’ emotional states from the 19th century. However, in diaries and letters, there is a predominance of discussion on challenges and emotional problems due to polygamy, with comparatively many fewer texts by women pointing to polygamy as a source of happiness.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Kaimi’s description of the OT as a “terrible, misogynist book with thoroughly f*ed up ideas about marriage and relationships” (#78) has received a second (#109), but no objections. I’ll go on the record as saying that I disagree with that characterization of the OT.
Comment by Jacob J — June 27, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
I see he’s put up a new post on that topic, which should be fun to watch.
Comment by Jacob J — June 27, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Just another thing about the video, even if you are endowed, sealed, and have the second anointing, I highly doubt you’ll get past the angels and sentries if you wear your robes as shown in the video.
Comment by Kari — June 27, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
but no objections
My comment above was a rejection as well, of all that he said, actually. For the record.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Yes, of course m&m, sorry.
Comment by Jacob J — June 27, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
If your child dies, there is no shelf.
Either that, or we define a shelf differently. To me, a shelf can also include waiting until the next life for all the blessings that we hope to receive, and trusting that whatever God has for us will be more than we can imagine, even though the present may be excruciatingly difficult. When I talk of a shelf, it’s about not assuming I know all of what is going on, be it historical or personal. It lets me trust God rather than myself, my understanding, my desires, my fears, or anything else of my limited mortal existence and understanding.
Each of us will choose to deal with difficult issues differently. The shelf to me is the option to losing faith, not the only way to exercise it. If someone is going to grapple to the point of losing faith, then that’s not faith.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Maybe I could put it this way. A shelf doesn’t put things out of sight. But it can help keep something from becoming a centerpiece.
Comment by m&m — June 27, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
144, did they prophesy in the blessings for pregnant women before their, ummm, “confinement”?
Comment by Latter-day Guy — June 27, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
“What, you want to read 100,000 pages?”
Well, I do kinda tend to obsess. The problem is I really can’t tell beforehand whether the obesession is going to take hold, or not. I might gather up all the information I could, and then find that I’m more interested in … you know, whatever comes chugging down the track. But I could see myself reading everything recorded, over a period of time, if it really struck my fancy.
I have become MUCH more interested in reading Mormon history over the last several months. But, so far, no obsessive behaviour. Maybe later.
When I took books in to sell at the sellin place here recently, my only Mormon history book - the recent lauded book on David O McKay (which I did really enjoy) - got sold. (It was also the only book I got a reasonable sum, for.)
How is a person in my position to decide how to view a thing. I mean, purely as an intellectual matter. I begin from my own experience, since it is the thing I feel that I can best know, if I have been relentlessly self-honest, with some degree of reliability. And knowing my deep tendancy to stack the deck in my own favor, I have difficulty trusting the objectivity of people who seem to not have put as much effort into it. I do understand the limitations of this. But, at the very least, I feel that I’ve become aware of my own biases, maybe something about their roots, and have an idea of how far I’m going to be able to overcome them. Otherwise I’m always left at the mercy of someone else’s subjectivity. On what grounds do _I_ determine whether the author of the book chose as objectively as possible his .5%. The best I can do is find a person’s opinion who I really trust, who knows a great deal more than I do; or, better, triangulate the opinions of a number of people I more or less trust. I rarely find these situation in ‘consensus’ among ‘experts.’ Its always a question of whose experts. When everyone is speaking in one direction, that is exactly the time I get most suspicious. But, like I said, I do understand the value of moving from the general to the individual, if the general can be assesed reliably.
As I stated earlier, my own observation from watching ‘polyamorous’ relationships and families is that they end badly. I’m not certain how far that transfers to 19th centure Mormon polygamy. It is easy to believe that more unhappiness than hapiness resulted. I’m also left thinking, however, that those problems might be more to do with the native dispositions and understanding and expectations and the entire previous life experiences of the individuals involved than with the differing family structure itself. One of the problems with our feeling agsint polygamy is the fact that the feeling itself has been so deeply conditioned into us by the way we give the royal robe to exclusivity in love. I think we are prejudiced against approaching it as a spiritual exercise - though I admit that I don’t approach it that way myself, and have no plan to, having no real reason to. Someone else might find that their mileage varies.
Blah blah blah. Think I’m about done here.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 27, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
I remember reading a book written by an American woman who spent a couple of years in Northern Iraq in the mid 1950’s–a country that’s been polygynous into the distant past. She spoke Arabic, really got to know the women. Lots of the discussion was about how to keep your husband from marrying a new wife, and how to best respoond if it happened. This, in a country which established rules for polygnous behavior–in Islam the man must give each wife the same amount of money, a rule that certainly did not exist in early Mormonism. So, women hate it. Even when culturally accepted and a certain amount of fairness is required.
Comment by djinn — June 27, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
This is what comes from actually WORKING all day. Best.Firestorm.Ever and we’re already up to over 150 comments and I have so many replies to make.
Tracy, regarding things they didn’t teach you in the discussions: I had no idea. None. I’m guessing you are more aware of such things than I was at the same point post-conversion. That’s a good thing for you.
I don’t believe that God commanded polygamy. It’s possible that Joseph thought he did. Joseph was a complex fellow.
In spite of all the professed reluctance by Smith’s followers, it wasn’t long until they were enthusiastic participants. The women who thrived under polygamy were those who didn’t love their husbands very much