Your thoughts on Desiring multiple wives

[MsQwerty]

In Emma Smith's case, yes; because the woman's right to give or withhold consent to her husband's polygamous marriages (the "Law of Sarah") does not apply to a woman married to the man who holds the keys of the sealing power--i.e., the President of the Church. See D&C 132:64-65. For the rest of the Church, the Law of Sarah remained intact as long as polygamy was practiced; and a man who overrode the desires of his wife and took another was abusing his priesthood.

Lucky Emma. Do you know of any instances where men were disciplined for marrying women without the first wife's consent? Or where she was pretty much bullied into accepting the extra wife or wives? And did number one and two then get to agree on number three, and so on? Or did it always come down to number one wife playing the role of Sarah for each additional wife? That's something I have not yet looked into...

As for YFZ and the FLDS: I note, first, that "Sarah" turned out to be a black Mormon in Colorado who (from the foregoing, one may easily deduce) had no connection whatsoever to the FLDS Church.

For a while there I thought she might not have existed at all, that she was simply a plant by the police. What on earth possessed a woman like her to make that call? Was she put up to it? Was she paid? It doesn't make sense to me that she would randomly make allegations of the kind she did.

Moreover, I also read Carolyn Jessop's book. I found it extremely self-serving, and have been in contact with several FLDS who contradict not only Ms. Jessop's generalizations, but also her recollections of several specific events.

Are those FLDS simply protecting their community by contradicting her? Agreed about the tone of her book, and the generalisations, but I put down her ego-centrism to someone who is simply a bit emotionally stunted as a result of living such an insular lifestyle her entire life. She's a work in progress, and when I read her book she reminded me in many ways of an adolescent girl who is still maturing and understanding how the big, bad world works. I cut her a lot of slack as a result...

I have not read Brent Jeffs' book, but last I heard he was in the middle of suing his dear uncle Warren for a seven-figure sum. If I want to know what "really" happened to him, I suspect the trial transcript would be a far more enlightening document if and when it becomes available..

I'd like to read those transcripts too. Brent Jeffs is still quite young, in his mid-20's and despite having a professional writer help him express his story, he also comes across as fairly juvenile. He sounds like he was an absolute nightmare of a kid, and the book has quite a few comments like "I was popular", "I was strong", "I could have had any girl I wanted" and when he had the discussions with the LDS missionaries (while dating an LDS girl) he noted how impressed they were with his scriptural knowledge "I could have converted them to the FLDS if I wanted to". So if you found Carolyn's book hard to take, Brent's will probably bother you too. He does however, refer to court hearings where he and his brothers testified of being raped at young ages by Warren Jeffs. There are some contradictions in the book where Brent claims that he was terrified to be in Warren Jeff's presence, but then he boldly shakes Jeff's hand and stares him down at one point. It seems to me that his memories are somewhat confused, but there is no doubt the boy was traumatised by his experiences in the FLDS. Warren Jeffs routinely 'reassigned' wives and families of men who had been excommunicated or otherwise disciplined by the FLDS church - this meant the husbands were banished and their entire families given to another man. It's chilling stuff to read.

The book states that Brent and the group of 'lost boys' who are suing the FLDS, all made the choice not to take individual payments if their suit is successful. Each claimed that this would only hurt their remaining families in the community. They did accept a few acres each of land that belonged to the FLDS, and I'm not sure if any cash was awarded to them individually. The 'lost boys' stipulated that FLDS money remain in the community under the control of a trustee appointed by the State. This apparently was effective in removing financial control from Warrent Jeffs, who until recently had the power to take people's homes off them if they disobeyed him as a prophet. Additionally, $250,000+ of the money was awarded to organizations that help other 'lost boys' and those who are trying to escape the FLDS.

Has that changed and now Brent is suing for a payment of cash to him personally?

Ann Eliza Young's book is a valid source (subject to Elphaba's critique above), but you should be aware that it went through several editions and the later ones were apparently spiced up by publishers who had zero first-hand experience with the Mormons. If you want to read her experiences, make sure you've got a first edition (or an exact copy thereof).

I'm not sure which version I read, it was paperback and the cover looked very 1960's to me so it might have been one of the embellished versions you mention. I've loaned it to a friend so can't look at it right now to find out when it was printed.

Not trying to say polygamous communities don't have any problems--even grievous ones--but we, of all people, should know that ex-members of a religious community are, all-too-often, extremely poor sources as to what's "really happening" within that community.

Oh I agree with you to a large extent. I work with someone who claims to be ex-LDS and the rubbish she claims we believe in is very frustrating. But there are enough ex-FLDS now who all tell similar stories about the kinds of abuse that run rampant in that church for us to know that there are some serious issues (like underage marriage and misappropriation of state and federal funds meant for schools, for starters) in the FLDS communities. One thing that both Carolyn Jessop and Brent Jeffs seemed to agree on as I read their books, was that their polygamous communities were not such frightening places to live in prior to when Warren Jeffs became 'prophet'. As a matter of fact both recall many fond memories of family life, social activities, the ability to go to school, to watch television, read books, wear coloured clothes and a small amount of makeup and so on. All of that apparently began to change when Warren Jeff's father was the prophet and spent most of his time predicting the end of the world and telling people to prepare in some bizarre ways. When he died and Warren took over the leadership of the community, he went completely haywire and controlling and life became miserable for those who lived under him. I believe at least that much of what I've read so far, only because the same stories have come from so many different people who have fled the FLDS communities.

Edited September 28, 2009 by MsQwerty
typo

[Hemidakota]

Let's start with a brief (very brief) history of where monogamy comes from. I heard several rumors so I decided to research this topic myself. In a nutshell, monogamy was introduced by the Romans in a misbelief about why Catholic Priests were unable to be married. The Romans, several years after the Catholics instituded their policy for Priests to be unmarried, believed that the reason this was instituted was so that Priests could be "Married to God." At that point in time, it became popular belief that in order to be the most righteous, you could not have a spouse and that sexual relations was might as well be a sin. Somehow in all that mess, a law was instituded that basically said that IF you decide to get married, it can only be to increase the power of Rome, and even then you can only have 1 wife. And so Monogamy was born. However, the REAL reason that Priests were not allowed to be married was because there was a fluke of priests that were trying to give part of the church to their sons as an inheritance, which of course the church forbade, and caused all sorts of problems.... The doctrine of monogamy was carried over when Rome fell into all those parts of the world, and since the original settlers of America were from that part of the world, many of their core laws came with them.

I don't remember EXACTLY off the top of my head, but there's something like 150+ recognized cultures in the world, and only 13 of them (give or take a couple) practice Monogamy. It is actually a very small belief system.

Now we know that almost all of the Biblical prophets and many of our LDS prophets had more than one wife up until the 1900s when the US instituted stricter laws against it, and to conform with the laws (so we wouldn't get driven out of the promised land), we received revelation to stop practicing plural marriage.

However, as far as I've found, plural marriage is STILL a celestial law, although it is temorarily not being practiced (just like drinking wine, the law of consecration, etc .... we're just not "ready" for them at this time).

Now that all my mumbo jumbo is done, let me move on:

Because of US laws, many people who are married who "look on" another woman get a feeling of guilt because often it can lead to illegal practices which obviously we don't support. HOWEVER, is there any actual "sin" or what-not related to desiring to have more than one wife?

Just to clarify, I love my wife more than anything on this planet, and I would never want to substitute her or get rid of her or anything like that. She is a perfect angel in my eyes. However, I still find beauty in ALL women (regardless of race, weight, etc), and maybe I'm just trying to justify my "looking on other women," but I've researched it, and prayed about it, and find no fault. But others try to make me feel guilty, that is why I pose the topic to you guys.

Your thoughts?

You are 'trying to justify this action.'

Having more than one wife is not our place to ask, it will come to those who GOD can trust and may have a role in their eternal salvation - looking at Abraham who now sits on his own throne.

[FunkyTown]

You are 'trying to justify this action.'

Having more than one wife is not our place to ask, it will come to those who GOD can trust and may have a role in their eternal salvation - looking at Abraham who now sits on his own throne.

Yep. I'm throwing my weight in with Hemi, for what it's worth. Saying you want or don't want a specific law from God isn't really the issue.

God knows better than me. If tomorrow, I'm told we can't eat pork any more, no more herbie sausage on a bun with brown sauce and a runny egg for breakfast any more.

[pam]

I'm with Hemi and FT. If God told me tomorrow that I must live this law..whether I'm a female or not..does that give me the right to say no? I realize we have agency...I'm just not sure saying no to God would be the right decision.

[MrsAri]

Having been invited to a rally in support of The Bountiful Women's Society, I can honestly say that I don't know what group you're referring to: In Bountiful, BC, Canada, the women are intelligent, erudite and passionate about their beliefs.

Bountiful polygamists speak up

I disagree with them, but for those who want to see if they're an abused bunch, just go to Bountiful. They invite people to go there. They love visitors and a chance to share their views.

Specifically, I was referring to the testimony given to cult experts from former Moonies and satanists.

In regard to polygamist cults, I suppose there are some women who enjoy that type of lifestyle...I'm not one of them.

I watched the TV special news segment on the Polygamy Diaries...about the "lost boys"...the child brides...so tragic. And now the cult leader is behind bars where he belongs.

Edited September 28, 2009 by GrandmaAri

[MrsAri]

No wonder he's got a big smile on his face...

Smile for the camera!

[Just_A_Guy]

Lucky Emma. Do you know of any instances where men were disciplined for marrying women without the first wife's consent? Or where she was pretty much bullied into accepting the extra wife or wives? And did number one and two then get to agree on number three, and so on? Or did it always come down to number one wife playing the role of Sarah for each additional wife? That's something I have not yet looked into...

Heck, I can't even point to any specific instances where men (other than JS) married women without the first wife's consent, so I certainly can't point to any instances where they were disciplined for doing so. I'm not aware that anyone has really looked into the "policies and procedures" of polygamy; most of what I've seen seems more preoccupied with its emotional impact on those who lived it.

For a while there I thought she might not have existed at all, that she was simply a plant by the police. What on earth possessed a woman like her to make that call? Was she put up to it? Was she paid? It doesn't make sense to me that she would randomly make allegations of the kind she did.

It seems to me (not positive) that she was emotionally unbalanced and may have had a history of making crank calls.

Are those FLDS simply protecting their community by contradicting her? Agreed about the tone of her book, and the generalisations, but I put down her ego-centrism to someone who is simply a bit emotionally stunted as a result of living such an insular lifestyle her entire life. She's a work in progress, and when I read her book she reminded me in many ways of an adolescent girl who is still maturing and understanding how the big, bad world works. I cut her a lot of slack as a result...

Conceivably, but I've heard unfavorable jibes about her even from ex-members who have little remaining loyalty to the FLDS church. Obviously, no one source is going to give a complete picture here. As far as personally judging Ms. Jessop, I suppose you're right in that we should be charitable and cut her some slack. But if we're going to charitably label her as emotionally adolescent, we need to also view her factual accounts with the same jaundiced eye a parent uses in evaluating the factual validity of his teenaged daughter's statements.

It seems to me that his memories are somewhat confused, but there is no doubt the boy was traumatised by his experiences in the FLDS. Warren Jeffs routinely 'reassigned' wives and families of men who had been excommunicated or otherwise disciplined by the FLDS church - this meant the husbands were banished and their entire families given to another man. It's chilling stuff to read.

Thanks for the sum-up. I'll have to read it if/when I get a chance. I don't doubt that families were "reassigned" in some cases, though I wonder how statistically prevalent it is/was. I also wonder--was it a matter of Jeffs tearing apart families who all wanted to remain together? Or was it a matter of Jeffs saying to the women "your husband's sinning" and the women then saying "well, we want someone worthy, then." Neither situation is ideal (obviously!), but I'd be inclined to cut a little more slack in the latter case. After all, even the LDS church makes institutional judgments about the righteousness of its members (via excommunication).

The book states that Brent and the group of 'lost boys' who are suing the FLDS, all made the choice not to take individual payments if their suit is successful . . .

Has that changed and now Brent is suing for a payment of cash to him personally?

Brent, of course, has two causes of action. One is for being expelled from the community, and the other is for the sexual abuse. It may well be that he agreed to waive the payments for the former claim, but not the latter. News stories I've read say that Brent is definitely going after Warren personally. If I get a lot of time (and a few extra bucks in copying costs), I'll have to pull the court pleadings sometime.

This apparently was effective in removing financial control from Warrent Jeffs, who until recently had the power to take people's homes off them if they disobeyed him as a prophet. Additionally, $250,000+ of the money was awarded to organizations that help other 'lost boys' and those who are trying to escape the FLDS.

The screwy thing is, they can't give the property back to the individual FLDS because most of them would just turn it back over to Warren again. I don't envy the trustee.

Oh I agree with you to a large extent. I work with someone who claims to be ex-LDS and the rubbish she claims we believe in is very frustrating. But there are enough ex-FLDS now who all tell similar stories about the kinds of abuse that run rampant in that church for us to know that there are some serious issues (like underage marriage and misappropriation of state and federal funds meant for schools, for starters) in the FLDS communities. One thing that both Carolyn Jessop and Brent Jeffs seemed to agree on as I read their books, was that their polygamous communities were not such frightening places to live in prior to when Warren Jeffs became 'prophet'. As a matter of fact both recall many fond memories of family life, social activities, the ability to go to school, to watch television, read books, wear coloured clothes and a small amount of makeup and so on. All of that apparently began to change when Warren Jeff's father was the prophet and spent most of his time predicting the end of the world and telling people to prepare in some bizarre ways. When he died and Warren took over the leadership of the community, he went completely haywire and controlling and life became miserable for those who lived under him. I believe at least that much of what I've read so far, only because the same stories have come from so many different people who have fled the FLDS communities.

I agree with you that Jeffs' ascension caused major changes in FLDS society, at least some of them negative.

On the other hand, it's easy to "blame the new guy" when things go south--witness the bloggernaccle and how the gay-rights wing of the Church is accusing President Monson of being so "divisive" (by getting behind Prop 8) and publicly longing for Hinckley's return--even though both men in truth followed the exact same policies.

Some of these charges that are coming out are self-contradictory. For example, Ms. Jessop talks about the alleged FLDS policy of "bleeding the beast", but then says that she signed her kids up for welfare bennies entirely on her own initiative with no urging from--or knowledge by--her husband.

The truth, as in all cases, probably lies between the two extremes. On the whole, I'm glad Jeffs is in jail; but I wish they'd gotten him on charges that weren't so obviously trumped up. (But the Steed/Wall debacle is an entirely other story!)

[john doe]

I think these are illustrations on how pure doctrine and practice can become perverted by Satan for his purposes.

[MrsAri]

Regarding polygamy, it is God's will...enforced by civil law...to cease the practice.

Church members do investigators a great disservice by continually discussing a practice which is unaccepted in the Church.

Edited September 28, 2009 by GrandmaAri

[annamaureen]

Church members do investigators a great disservice by continually discussing a practice which is unaccepted in the Church.

I don't think we should refrain from discussing our history of polygamy and possibilities in the eternities, just in case an investigator might stumble across it.

[deseretgov]

Regarding polygamy, it is God's will...enforced by civil law...to cease the practice.

Church members do investigators a great disservice by continually discussing a practice which is unaccepted in the Church.

Technically it is still an accepted practice. As I'm sure you know, if a man's wife dies he can get sealed to another woman. Only marriage to more than one living spouse is unaccepted.

Personally I think there should be more discussion about polygamy. To many people's hearts are closed to the practice and view it as wrong. I believe the practice will be restored again either before the Second coming or after it. We're(meaning the LDS Church) going to have a heck of a time trying to reinstitute something people hate.

We are doing a disservice to people by not talking about it.

[pam]

Church members do investigators a great disservice by continually discussing a practice which is unaccepted in the Church.

I disagree with this. In most instances it is usually brought up by a non member. In many cases this is the only thing they know about Mormons or LDS. Being able to explain to them and to set straight the misunderstandings surrounding the practice is something we should feel obligated to do.

Edited September 28, 2009 by pam

[MrsAri]

I don't think we should refrain from discussing our history of polygamy and possibilities in the eternities, just in case an investigator might stumble across it.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. It's a disagreeable subject, and offends many people...especially investigators.

[MrsAri]

I disagree with this. In most instances it is usually brought up by a non member. In many cases this is the only thing they know about Mormons or LDS. Being able to explain to them and to set straight the misunderstandings surrounding the practice is something we should feel obligated to do.

I don't undertand why we should feel compelled to discuss something in our history which is looked upon with disdain by investigators.

[MrsAri]

Technically it is still an accepted practice. As I'm sure you know, if a man's wife dies he can get sealed to another woman. Only marriage to more than one living spouse is unaccepted.

Personally I think there should be more discussion about polygamy. To many people's hearts are closed to the practice and view it as wrong. I believe the practice will be restored again either before the Second coming or after it. We're(meaning the LDS Church) going to have a heck of a time trying to reinstitute something people hate.

We are doing a disservice to people by not talking about it.

It is an unacceptable practice which is an offense worthy of excommunication. And of course, we are discussing "living" with more than one spouse.

I don't see a practice which is humiliating and degrading to women being restored.

[pam]

So if an investigator came to me and said "Hey, the only thing I know about Mormons is polygamy" I shouldn't feel compelled to discuss it with them? To let someone who has a complete misunderstanding of how it fits in with our history go on their merry way without attempting to correct or explain?

That just doesn't make sense to me.

[MrsAri]

So if an investigator came to me and said "Hey, the only thing I know about Mormons is polygamy" I shouldn't feel compelled to discuss it with them? To let someone who has a complete misunderstanding of how it fits in with our history go on their merry way without attempting to correct or explain?

That just doesn't make sense to me.

My husband is a ward missionary. What he has been told is that investigators are provided with information which is derogatory about the Church. Before the missionaries even have a chance to feed them milk, their interest in the Church has been destroyed by the "meat" they learn from the anti element.

My policy is to disempower evil. In other words, why discuss something which is not only against the law, but an unacceptable practice in the Church worthy of excommunication.

[pam]

I would agree that is true...but I am not going to turn down a discussion if someone were to ask me about polygamy and miss an opportunity to explain or hopefully correct a misunderstanding. By refusing to discuss some of these issues..only leads those that might have an only an "anti" understanding of it to also believe we have something to hide.

I'd rather be upfront and vocal about it..then to push it under the rug. One exception would be what goes on in the temple.

Edited September 28, 2009 by pam

[john doe]

I don't undertand why we should feel compelled to discuss something in our history which is looked upon with disdain by investigators.

What other misunderstood doctrines of the church do you think we should avoid talking about? If you keep your head buried in the sand long enough people will start mistaking you for an ostrich.

[pam]

I don't undertand why we should feel compelled to discuss something in our history which is looked upon with disdain by investigators.

Isn't that more of a reason to discuss it? That disdain usually comes from a misunderstanding.

[beefche]

I don't see a practice which is humiliating and degrading to women being restored.

Interesting. I find it difficult to label polygamy, when commanded by God, as a practice that is degrading and humiliating to women. I guess I'm of the ilk that believes that God gives us commandments for our good and the commandments are good--since it came from God.

[ttribe]

Am I the only one that thinks this entire thread was nothing more than a fishing expedition for someone to quote mine and use on another corner of the Internet?

Perhaps I'm just paranoid

[john doe]

It is an unacceptable practice which is an offense worthy of excommunication. And of course, we are discussing "living" with more than one spouse.

I don't see a practice which is humiliating and degrading to women being restored.

The current applications of it by those who are not authorized by God do make it unacceptable. Satan is very capable of making anything good seem evil by perverting the original purposes and practices. Polygamy as instituted by God was never about humiliation or degrading women, or even about dirty old men wanting a lot of sex from young girls.

[pam]

Am I the only one that thinks this entire thread was nothing more than a fishing expedition for someone to quote mine and use on another corner of the Internet?

Perhaps I'm just paranoid

Not sure what you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

[ttribe]

Not sure what you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

I guess I am just questioning the sincerity of the OP in this thread...whether he was asking a sincere question or just trying to work up a lather amongst the board participants that he can then copy and paste somewhere else for a little laugh-fest at our expense.