Plural Marriages Failure

[Rico]

When you do any kind of research on the history of the Church, you definitely run across a lot of information about plural marriages. Most of it seems to be either pushing it under the rug or else it is attacking it.

I don't know if I am alone, but the more I study it, the more I see that it is just another doctrine that we could not properly handle such as the United Order and the Law of Consecration. The purpose seems to be a good one. I know there are many more righteous woman than there are righteous men in the church.

An example might be the new member single mother with two kids from two different boyfriends who are now long gone. The boyfriends are gone and don't even care. She needs someone to be supportive of her and help her raise her kids, but it might be hard to find an existing single male member who can provide that. She can follow everything, but she won't be married and able to be exalted.

I know Heavenly Father has a solution to that and I know that some have suggested(and I dont know how correct that they are) that Heavenly Father will provide wives and husbands to those without. I've also heard that He will seal(again I am not sure if its right or wrong) some single women to men who do have other wives that they are sealed to.

If that's the case then it seems that plural marriage is sanctioned in the celestial kingdom and has a definite purpose. Looking at history though, there were definitely problems in the application of it. While I am sure some followed it as intended, some didn't and twisted it in their own way. I have no problem accepting that Heavenly Father decided that people weren't ready for it and withdrew it, maybe as a good lesson to learn.

In my opinion, from looking at it, plural marriages is not the evil thing some have suggested, just something that we don't have the wisdom, strength or knowledge to properly handle at this stage. And yes my opinion, before I studied things, was that plural marriages were bad.

I would appreciate any pushes in the right direction to understanding things.

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh, I agree completely. Polygamy is a very dangerous tool in the hands of a people who are unable or unwilling to live a celestial law.

Even such decent people as Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith couldn't get all of their marriages to work--Young and Smith both had a divorce or two apiece.

Lived properly, though, there are huge potential advantages--mutual emotional support among the wives; arguably more checks against the husband's power to act unilaterally, decreased labor in household duties, and stronger connections between different families (I've seen research suggesting that one of the reasons so many Mormons were willing to move to Utah with Brigham Young is that many of them--especially in the higher echelons of leadership--were interrelated by marriage). In the long term, the temple blessings of eternal increase can be accelerated as the family's child-producing capacity increases.

That said, I've seen stories about polygamous relationships gone wrong that would make your hair curl. There was an incident in American Fork in the 1860s where a polygamous wife, in a fit of jealousy, actually locked another (younger) one of her husband's wives out of the family home in the dead of winter; she froze to death right there on the doorstep.

I've long suspected that even without Federal intervention, the law of plural marriage would have been not long for this world.

[pam]

From lds.org

The Bible indicates that Abraham, Jacob, and others of the Lord’s servants had multiple wives (see Genesis 16:1–3; 29:23–30; 30:4, 9; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1–2). Joseph Smith asked God why He had permitted this practice and was told that God had commanded it for specific purposes. One reason given by the Lord for plural marriage is mentioned in the Book of Mormon: “If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [have only one wife]” (Jacob 2:30; see also v. 27).

After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.

When the Saints moved west under the direction of Brigham Young, more Latter-day Saints entered into plural marriages.

Influenced by rumors and exaggerated reports, the United States Congress, beginning in 1862, enacted a series of laws against polygamy that became increasingly harsh. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saint men were imprisoned or went into hiding.

In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890 and is published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1 (see also “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto” following Official Declaration 1).

Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.

More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley has reiterated that plural marriage is “against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage” (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 72).

Groups who teach polygamy today are not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

With that being said...I agree Rico with your comment that it's not the evil thing. I do agree that it is something we are not ready for here on an earthly realm perhaps..not yet anyway. Perhaps as we progress....

Edited February 19, 2009 by pam

[Elgama]

if you think about it Jacob hardly had harmonious time with his plural marriages - one wife felt left out.... Abraham sent one out to die in the dessert.

Personally I like the idea more than my lovely husband does lol with my fibromyalgia I see a lot of wisdom in the practice. For example when he got sick my husband got 4 days off work to feel better and rest - I have had same flu bug for 2 months now because I have had no break

-Charley

[hordak]

When you do any kind of research on the history of the Church, you definitely run across a lot of information about plural marriages. Most of it seems to be either pushing it under the rug or else it is attacking it.

I don't know if I am alone, but the more I study it, the more I see that it is just another doctrine that we could not properly handle such as the United Order and the Law of Consecration. The purpose seems to be a good one. I know there are many more righteous woman than there are righteous men in the church.

An example might be the new member single mother with two kids from two different boyfriends who are now long gone. The boyfriends are gone and don't even care. She needs someone to be supportive of her and help her raise her kids, but it might be hard to find an existing single male member who can provide that. She can follow everything, but she won't be married and able to be exalted.

I know Heavenly Father has a solution to that and I know that some have suggested(and I dont know how correct that they are) that Heavenly Father will provide wives and husbands to those without. I've also heard that He will seal(again I am not sure if its right or wrong) some single women to men who do have other wives that they are sealed to.

If that's the case then it seems that plural marriage is sanctioned in the celestial kingdom and has a definite purpose. Looking at history though, there were definitely problems in the application of it. While I am sure some followed it as intended, some didn't and twisted it in their own way. I have no problem accepting that Heavenly Father decided that people weren't ready for it and withdrew it, maybe as a good lesson to learn.

In my opinion, from looking at it, plural marriages is not the evil thing some have suggested, just something that we don't have the wisdom, strength or knowledge to properly handle at this stage. And yes my opinion, before I studied things, was that plural marriages were bad.

I would appreciate any pushes in the right direction to understanding things.

I would disagree with the idea it was discontinued because "we couldn't follow it properly" I have never seen anything to indicate this.

The scriptures...

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous

Indicate the ban on polygamy came from the desire to uphold the law of the land and not from a misuse of it.

[Maya]

And Elgama veiaversa... IF the man would get sick... it is often NOT enough with one woman trying to comfort him and run for him to do this and that .... especially as there are other things too to do!

"There was an incident in American Fork in the 1860s where a polygamous wife, in a fit of jealousy, actually locked another (younger) one of her husband's wives out of the family home in the dead of winter; she froze to death right there on the doorstep."

That was terrible to read!

I tend to agree with everyone here. Very good points!

Pam thanks for a VERY good sumering of things and hitory! I hope you dont mind if I use that in finnish in a finnish forum... some really good points there!

I also believe that IF plural marriages had been a wrong step God had removed JS as a profet, right after he began to tell about it. Sometimes I feel sorry for JS for this task, as Emma was not so very keen on it... think to get a law from God, that you know is as hard as that one to accomplish and to get approved by all. No wonder God had to threathen JS with death if he did not do as he was told to!

I also think that maybe in the celestial kingdom... in the highest part there, you just cant manage without more than one wife!

My DH says; he has his hands full with only me. And to think of more tjhan one....!

I wonder what did he excactly mean by that...

Yes I am afraid most of us are not ready for this law... yet, our love thowards each other has to grow. We need to be filled by love like Jesus had.

[Maya]

I would disagree with the idea it was discontinued because "we couldn't follow it properly" I have never seen anything to indicate this.

The scriptures...

Indicate the ban on polygamy came from the desire to uphold the law of the land and not from a misuse of it.

Yes you are right Hordk, but the truth is, there DID happen things that should NOT have happened, that show that we were not ready for it either! Many of us are too selfish.

[Honor]

Thanks for this Rico. I'll admit that I am one of those who is driven more by emotion and feelings than I am purely by facts. Hopefully there's a fair amount of logic in there too, but I have not struggled with this issue in the same way that some of my family and friends have.

I hit a point a few years ago after one General Conference when I just couldn't stop thinking about the whole polygamy issue. It wasn't something that was changing my testimony, but my worry was that SHOULD I ever be asked to live such a law, I wouldn't be strong enough to accept the calling in faith. I would hope that I could see it from a perspective other than my own and willingly accept the charge to make the sacrifices needed to help a fellow sister and obey a loving Heavenly Father. To see that a fellow sister needed my sacrifice to obtain the blessings of eternity that she deserved. I hoped that I'd be able to see that it was most certainly NOT the ideal situation that she probably hoped for, but that we were all asking to sacrifice.

However, "knowing" that, and believing that I could live it were two completely different things. I didn't feel at peace and I wanted to. It weighed on my mind for several weeks without finding answers. I finally was in an interview with my bishop and I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought I should do to find the calm I was seeking. My dear bishop (who has 2 beautiful daughters) said the following, "Honor, if there is anything I do know, it's how the Lord must feel about his precious daughters. I know how I feel about my own and that's just an imperfect mortal view. I wouldn't venture to say that He loves His daughters more than His sons, but you need to know of the tender feelings He carries for His daughters especially. He WOULD NOT ask you to live a law or enter into a covenant that gave you the short end of the stick. We cannot imagine the blessings in store when we live the most challenging commandments."

I don't know how, but it brought the peace I needed. When I get caught up in life or feeling weak, I always find myself coming back to the basic truths that I simply can't deny. I know that Heavenly Father is a perfect and loving parent. I know that His plan is will not exclude anyone from blessings that they deserve - He keeps his covenants. There simply are some things that we will not be able to understand in our mortal state and it is a testimony of our Father, our Savior and the Atonement that will fill the gaps in our view of eternity. I know that people look down on the answer, "Take it on faith" like it's some easy answer to avoid proving a truth with facts. But just like all the Sunday School answers (no matter how overused), it's true, not easy AT ALL, but it's true. I know that all will be right in the end. I don't need to worry about my portion of some eternal reward being what I deserve. I need to constantly be seeking the peace in order to alleviate that worry, but I have no doubt that if I'm doing what I need to, the peace will come eventually.

I know this isn't how it works for everybody, but if anybody knows each of us and what we need, it's our Heavenly Father. This is how it is for me, but there is a way for everyone to find the answers we seek regardless of where our tendencies fall on the faith/fact scale.

[hordak]

Yes you are right Hordk, but the truth is, there DID happen things that should NOT have happened, that show that we were not ready for it either! Many of us are too selfish.

I'm sure there were. But I can't imagine a law being dropped because some don't follow it properly.

How many of us have to mess up the intention of the WoW before I get the ok to have a rum and coke ^_^

[Honor]

I'm sure there were. But I can't imagine a law being dropped because some don't follow it properly.

How many of us have to mess up the intention of the WoW before I get the ok to have a rum and coke ^_^

Maybe it's not so much the eternal law that was dropped, but the opportunity for the saints to receive the blessings that would come from obeying such a law. But regardless of what the motivation was to end polygamy at the time, I don't think it proves or disproves the divine hand in it. God knows how to accomplish His purposes regardless of human success or failings.

[Just_A_Guy]

But I can't imagine a law being dropped because some don't follow it properly.

There is precedent, though, in God's giving Israel the Mosaic Law after they had proven themselves incapable of living the higher law He originally gave Moses on Sinai.

[hordak]

There is precedent, though, in God's giving Israel the Mosaic Law after they had proven themselves incapable of living the higher law He originally gave Moses on Sinai.

I have heard that but in all honesty have never read that section thoroughly. Is there anything in the bible or Torah that indicate the first smashed set was different?

[Just_A_Guy]

No; I believe that particular teaching is peculiar to us Mormons.

[Janice]

Personally I like the idea more than my lovely husband does lol with my fibromyalgia I see a lot of wisdom in the practice. For example when he got sick my husband got 4 days off work to feel better and rest - I have had same flu bug for 2 months now because I have had no break-Charley

I am with you on this one! I welcome the idea of sharing my work load. But only, of course, if I am the *FIRST* wife!

Janice

[Janice]

I know that Heavenly Father is a perfect and loving parent. I know that His plan is will not exclude anyone from blessings that they deserve - He keeps his covenants.

Beautiful post, Honor. Thank you.

[MarginOfError]

Ultimately, we don't know what God's reasoning was. We can speculate a lot and come up with some pretty good reasons, but we just don't know the full reason.

It's perfectly plausible that the change in policy was preemptive. Can you imagine a polygamous society following the Equal Rights Amendment? If we were to let men marry more than one woman, shouldn't we let women marry more than one man? Doesn't that essentially degenerate into state sanctioned promiscuity?

We can trust that God knows what he's doing. It never hurts to ask why, so long as when we ask we're willing to accept that we might not know.

[Rico]

Thanks for all the answers, at least I know that i am not alone in what I have come across.

[Maya]

I'm sure there were. But I can't imagine a law being dropped because some don't follow it properly.

How many of us have to mess up the intention of the WoW before I get the ok to have a rum and coke ^_^

More like incabablity in question....

[countrygirl66]

This is a particularly hard subject for me. I know that in the world that I live in today and where I am at in life that I could not live this law. I also know that my great grandma thought it was the greatest blessing of her life and took care of two other wives and raised some of their children. I do feel at peace though that the lord would never force this law upon me. I have heard many say that it will come back. I think that is just speculation. I have wondered about the celestial kingdom and sealings, because their have been so many righteous young men killed in wars throughout the history of the world, that i wonder if maybe there will be more men available for sealings than some think. I don't know. I am one that if I had to live this, it would break something in my marriage, and maybe that is why I live now. I don't know. Maybe i just lack the right spirit. I remember that when I was in young womens, I had someone tell me that all celestial kingdom marriages would be plural. It made me have no desire to strive to be in the celestial kingdom. I no longer beleive that is true, I think heavenly father wants all of his children to have joy.

[hordak]

It's perfectly plausible that the change in policy was preemptive. Can you imagine a polygamous society following the Equal Rights Amendment? If we were to let men marry more than one woman, shouldn't we let women marry more than one man? Doesn't that essentially degenerate into state sanctioned promiscuity?

.

I don't understand your reasoning here? If a man is lawfully married to more then one women it is ok to sleep with them(BY). When it is brought up about Joesph most people respond with "it was only sealing and nothing sexual (which may or may not be true but he is always given the benefit of the doubt). But if a women is married to more then one man (which has happened during polygamy) it is suddenly state sanction promiscuity. Absolutely not.

[Rico]

Well, from what I understand, a woman can be sealed to only man but a man can be sealed to more than one woman.

[Janice]

Well, from what I understand, a woman can be sealed to only man but a man can be sealed to more than one woman.

Rico, thank you for raising this issue.

Ok, it's possible that I have this memory kicking around in my head that is not a real memory, but it seems that I recall having someone read a letter from the FP.... this would have been sometime around 1988/89... that said this doctrine had been changed, and that in the event a widow was sealed to her first husband, she could again marry in the temple for time AND eternity with her second husband as well.

But, since then, I've never heard anything more about this, and I have known young LDS widows who have been frustrated at the prospect of finding a new husband because he'll have to settle for a time only wedding.

This has been a little splinter in the back of my mind that I keep thinking one day I should solve, but it rarely comes up. Now that it has come up, however, I'm curious if anyone else recalls such a letter, or knows with surety what the official doctrine is.

Thanks,

Janice

[Just_A_Guy]

Good point, Hordak.

Besides, several of Joseph Smith's wives were simultaneously married to other men.

Still, though, I like Margin of Error's overall point. Who knows what abominations would have been done under the cloak of legalized polygamy during the 1960s?

[hordak]

Good point, Hordak.

Besides, several of Joseph Smith's wives were simultaneously married to other men.

Still, though, I like Margin of Error's overall point. Who knows what abominations would have been done under the cloak of legalized polygamy during the 1960s?

I don't know. I think a women or man legal married to multiple spouses sleeping with all of them would be some what better then a man or women sleeping around with multiple partners while not married.

I guess it could go either way. Legal polygamy/polyandry(?) could lead to more entering these types of marriage specifically to "get some" on the side. But it could also prevent some from straying.( a guy with 3 wives might be less inclined to seek out something new.IMO). It could also hold fathers more emotionally responsible. Now you see the guy, his wife and child, his one night stand or mistress, and his baby from the her who may get court ordered financial support but not necessarily emotional. If he was a polygamist we could see a guy, his 2 wives and his kids.

Edited February 20, 2009 by hordak

[Maureen]

Rico said:

I know there are many more righteous woman than there are righteous men in the church.......An example might be the new member single mother with two kids from two different boyfriends who are now long gone....

I think I'm amazed by your example of a more righteous woman.