Polygamy Predictions.

[Fiannan]

Polygamy ideally only occurs with the consent of the current wife/wives.

What's with all the hysteria in this thread about how evil or wrong or hard polygamy was/would be? It's a celestial principle we aren't currently living. You don't have to have more than one wife to inherit the Celestial Kingdom, but polygamy is nonetheless a celestial principle.

You can't be celestial while clinging to the telestial. Period

.

I would NEVER give my consent. My husband and I have talked about this and he hates the idea even more than I do. We would never live it, celestial law or not. Hopefully, we would not be considered righteous enough to do it lol. JCDean78, I have the same opinion as you. We've discussed what to do if the other dies at a young age. I want my organs donated, he doesnt, but neither of us will ever get married to anyone else. Even if he died tomorrow I would never ever marry again. I could never love anyone like I love him. I would live so I could see him again one day. I really have a hard time with polygamy and hate it when people bring it up who aren't church members. Its an embarrassment as far as Im concerned. I understand why we had it, but that doesnt mean I have to like it!

I doubt that the English government would ever legalise it anyway. Anything remotely religious (unless its Islam of course) is viewed suspiciously and mocked. Tony Blair once made a comment that he prayed. It was all over the papers, the news, interviews-he had to retract the statement, he said, well of course I dont mean literally, just in my heart or something like that. And the nation breathed a sigh of relief. Thats the way it is over here.

Gay marriages, or 'civil partnerships' were made legal here last December. Gays can adopt. Its all ok. Anything religious, isnt. I dont have a problem with gay people as such, obviously it is wrong, but we need to show love to all as the Saviour would. I have a few gay friends. I do not believe in gay adoption or marriage though. It makes a mockery of the sanctity and unity of marriage and ruins kids who need a male and female role model.

Yes, England has truly evolved into an infidel nation -- too bad too, but oh well...maybe England would not go for polygamy. A friend of mine from Britain said the natural way of pairing off there is to get drunk at the pup and get to know the person you wake up with the next morning (certainly not a strong climate for a religious-based marriage relationship like polygamy should be).

Also, again, most people would not want to live in a polygamist relationship as it totally goes against the selfishness western society is based on. Another foundation for infidel culture is lack of commitment and pokygamy actually magnifies the level of commitment one must live. I read recently that many women in Britain are rejecting marriage and instead going to sperm banks. Yet with the severe shortage of men in Britain who have adequate sperm levels, and then the further lack of men willing to donate, many British women are forced to go to Denmark to get what they need (some have called this the second Viking invasion). Sad what is happening to a once proud nation.

The thing I am getting at though is that the kind of people who would adopt polygamy would come from the personality types associated with going against the norms of conventional society. Also associated with these types is generally higher intelligence. Therefore you could get more religious children in the next generation and they would be smarter as well.

Of course, nobody should be forced to live in such a household, but people whould have the choice.

[shanstress70]

Also, again, most people would not want to live in a polygamist relationship as it totally goes against the selfishness western society is based on.

Is your wife willing to share you with other women, or is she another one of those selfish people in the western society? Just curious.

[Shade]

constitutionally and legally speaking, if polygamy were legalised, the govt would have little alternative but to legalise polyandry along with it. not to do so would be sexist and unconstitutional.

in south africa, it appears that final drafts of the amendments which will officially legalise gay marriages is about to be submitted. because of our incredibly colourful cultural heritage, many men in various "african" or "black" cultures have multiple wives. the muslim community, too. thus it is that in south africa, these marriages are already recognised, but not necessarily "legal". they have been going on for hundreds of years. it's an interesting country in which to live.

now thanks to our (excessively????) liberal democratic approach to our constitution, as soon as gay marriages are legalised polygamy and, along with it polyandry, are sure to finally be legally adopted and the constitutional courts will certainly amend the legislation governing such matters.

this will open up an interesting situation where ANY man OR woman may have as many husbands AND/OR wives, as they choose. and each of those husbands AND/OR wives are, within their constitutionally and democratically protected rights, entitled to as many husbands AND/OR wives as they choose. they may also be married to each other's spouses, male and female to male or female. ad infinitum.

here's a game to play!!!! go on do this little exercise, by making up a hypothetical marriage tree:

1. grab a pen and paper

2. draw 2 boxes, label them MAN A and WOMAN A

3. underneath, draw additional boxes for each of the husbands AND/OR wives that each of them is gonna marry. label these MAN B, MAN C, WOMAN B, WOMAN C, etc, etc.

4. underneath each of these, continue to draw more boxes and label them alphabetically according to gender

5. work up to around 5 levels deep, or so

6. now start connecting some of these existing spouses to others' spouses on other levels, until you have connected every spouse to every other spouse

7. add up the possible number of marriages

SCARY stuff.

imagine the fights, arguments and probably even wars that would break out when any of the "final will and testament" papers are ever read...

oh what fun!!!

[CrimsonKairos]

Let me just say this:

Just because someone cannot imagine living the law of polygamy does not mean other people wouldn't embrace, enjoy and magnify said lifestyle.

Would I live polygamy if the Lord asked me to? Sure. Would it be all roses, arrows with heart-shaped tips, and vases of fragrant flowers every day? Probably not.

The purpose of polygamy, much like monogamy, is to bring children into the world.

There are easier, cheaper and faster ways to have lots of sex than to marry and be obligated to support more than one wife and her/their children from you.

I agree with Fiannan...it would take someone with an increased ability to commit and sacrifice to be able to live the law of polygamy.

So happens I think I could love and serve more than one woman along with few or many children. I don't stay up at night praying for polygamy to be reinstated. But it wouldn't scare me, embarass me, or alienate me from the Church.

[begood2]

"Also associated with these types is generally higher intelligence. Therefore you could get more religious children in the next generation and they would be smarter as well."

Question for the guys: What if new revelation by the prophet said that Polyandry was now a requirement for all women? How eager, willing and accepting would you be in sharing your wife with another man or several of them?

[a-train]

Dude, that's gay.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm seriously thinking about adopting a-train's phrase as an online acronym. So if I ever write dtg, you'll know I'm saying, "Dude, that's gay." Hahahahaha. :)

Seriously though, begood, be it unto me according to the Lord. I really don't care what He asks me to do. I'll do my darndest to do it. Easy or not. Is that so surprising?

p.s. polyandry would raise serious problems regarding intra-family dynamics...I mean with more than one priesthood holder, who would preside? And how would they decide?

[begood2]

I'm seriously thinking about adopting a-train's phrase as an online acronym. So if I ever write dtg, you'll know I'm saying, "Dude, that's gay." Hahahahaha. :)

Seriously though, begood, be it unto me according to the Lord. I really don't care what He asks me to do. I'll do my darndest to do it. Easy or not. Is that so surprising?

(This is what I was trying to find out........how many guys would be just as accepting of a revelation in which the shoe is on the other foot so to speak!)

p.s. polyandry would raise serious problems regarding intra-family dynamics...I mean with more than one priesthood holder, who would preside? And how would they decide?

If such revelation were given about polyandry, then I'm sure that there would be answers for that too!

How did the women in a polygamy marriage decide when a conflict arose between them?

Dude, that's gay.

-a-train

What exactly does that mean?

[Aphrodite]

So happens I think I could love and serve more than one woman along with few or many children. I don't stay up at night praying for polygamy to be reinstated. But it wouldn't scare me, embarass me, or alienate me from the Church.

If my husband came upto me and said, 'you know what babe, I love you, but I could love someone else too' I would be devastated. It would mean he didn't love me with all his heart and soul, only a bit of it. He had room left to love someone else. I would be devastated. Men with attitudes like that are the ones who have affairs as all is not fulfilled. I'm not saying you would have an affair, I dont even know if you're married,but I dont know what your wife would say if you told her you didnt love her with all your heart and soul, only some of it. Great. If ure not married, you maybe havent fallen head over heels in love like you should do when you get married. Because to say you could love more than one woman means you cant be, or aren't planning to be, 'in' love, only 'to' love. That would not be good enough for me im afraid, and I dont think it would be for the majority of women out there.

Seriously though, begood, be it unto me according to the Lord. I really don't care what He asks me to do. I'll do my darndest to do it. Easy or not. Is that so surprising?

So, what if the Lord asked you to do something like he asked abraham, like murder your child. Would you do it? I wouldn't, because that would prove you didn't love your child. It would prove you loved the Lord, but that you didn't love your child. You would have a heart of stone. To be able to love the Lord so much to do what he asks, but to be able to do that to your child is a contradiction in terms. Sometimes, your heart wins over obedience, thats the way we were made. Id rather have more love in me than blind obedience. Well, i know I do lol

[Dr T]

who would preside? And how would they decide?

I'd suppose they might just come alongside their bride and present their side. Perhaps the bona fied authority would be identified by taking it outside. The lesser might return after he had dried his eyes (because he cried), as they stride back in the home. Who knows? Maybe the lesser would then be cast aside/brushed asided by the bride. Then when the victor did glide back in the room with some civic pride on his part of the continental divide, the wife with will understand he is just another Jekyll and Hydeand.

[a-train]

The 'gay dude' thing is a joke. Perhaps I should repent of my light-mindedness. I confess it was inspired by how I perceived the question posed to be light-minded in the first place. Excuse me please, I apologize.

Discussions so far removed from reality can only provide limited enlightenment. But, I suppose that the question of our willingness to perform the will of God regardless of what it is can only be truly answered through a test of Abrahamic proportion. If God asked you to kill would you do it? What about a family member? A popular government official? A rare and healthy animal? At least these examples are as close to us as our scriptures.

We simply have no record of God's dealing with polyandry within the whole of Judism, traditional Christianity, or the LDS Church. But rest assured, if our own understanding of God be so base, so crude, so elementary, that His will for us is poylandry and we have yet to become worthy enough for Him to so much as intimate the notion, then we are far removed from the capability of living the principle.

Let us suffice to say that we are intent on keeping all of God's commandments as we are guided by him and although the concept of polyandry is contrary to all we now understand, let us not commit ourselves to any principle of labor or abstinence independent of our diligence and heed to the first and greatest commandment of serving God with all our heart, mind, and soul.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

If my husband came upto me and said, 'you know what babe, I love you, but I could love someone else too' I would be devastated. It would mean he didn't love me with all his heart and soul, only a bit of it.

I disagree. Love is a verb, an action. God loves me as well as you. Does that mean He doesn't love me with all His heart just because He loves you too? Of course not. Love isn't a physical, tangible, divisible object. It's a gift we give from our heart and manifested through our service to others.

I believe that if you would love someone, serve them. So happens, I think I could serve and sacrifice for and hence love more than one woman. You're defining love as an emotion. I'm defining love as actions that demonstrate fondness, respect and affection. I don't equate affection with love.

Now if I could only help one wife with the laundry but not another, perhaps that would be not loving both wives with all my heart.

...I dont know what your wife would say if you told her you didnt love her with all your heart and soul, only some of it.

I don't see how you can't love more than one person with all of your being. God loves all His children equally, and He loves them with all His heart. Contradiction? No. I think those who possess the Spirit of God partake of the divine nature which allows God to love us all equally and wholeheartedly.

I think the fear that someone receives more love than us stems from a scarcity mentality. Scarcity mentalities stem from either a shortage of affection (the giver's problem), or from a perceived shortage of affection (the receiver's problem, not the giver's).

Also, as Fiannan pointed out, our society is very self-centric...me, me, me, my, my, my, gotta' get my own, etc.... I don't worry that I'm not as important as my neighbor just because God loves Him too. I'm secure in knowing God loves me, and it doesn't diminish from my relationship with Him if He loves millions of others too.

Great. If ure not married, you maybe havent fallen head over heels in love like you should do when you get married. Because to say you could love more than one woman means you cant be, or aren't planning to be, 'in' love, only 'to' love.

Precisely. Again, you define love as a feeling, a state of mind, whereas I define it as a quality, an action, a verb, a choice. Love isn't a crater that we fall into.

Now whether I'd be equally attracted to more than one woman physically is debatable. But again, this introduces false concepts like an inherent standard of beauty. There is no "one standard" of physical beauty. Everyone is attracted to something, and it's possible to appreciate more than one type of beauty.

Again, fearing that the "other wife" is more attractive stems from an insecurity and scarcity mentality (he doesn't love me enough, I don't get enough affection, she has more of his appreciation than I do...).

Now Christ set the pattern for husbands and wives within marriage. Husbands are to love and serve their wife/wives as Christ loves and serves each of us. Christ's love for us is a verb, actions, things he did and does for us. Christ didn't "fall in love with us," as he was strolling through the premortal realms. You no doubt have talents and strengths that I don't, and vice versa. I don't worry that Christ loves you more because you have talents I don't have.

I know he loves me because of what he did for me (atonement).

Love is an action, not a feeling.

So, what if the Lord asked you to do something like he asked abraham, like murder your child. Would you do it? I wouldn't, because that would prove you didn't love your child.

Wow, I guess we disagree on several foundational levels. Obeying the Lord would not mean you don't love your child. If you smiled and laughed as you held the knife poised over your child's throat might indicate something other than love. But reverently and sadly preparing to do all that God asked of me would not diminish my love for my child.

To be able to love the Lord so much to do what he asks, but to be able to do that to your child is a contradiction in terms.

I disagree, but I think we can agree on that. I think everyone should love the Lord first, and their family members (spouse included) second. If we do this, there will be no contradiction. It's not an either-or situation...love the Lord or love your child.

[Aphrodite]

I disagree. Love is a verb, an action. God loves me as well as you. Does that mean He doesn't love me with all His heart just because He loves you too? Of course not. Love isn't a physical, tangible, divisible object. It's a gift we give from our heart and manifested through our service to others.

Of course you can love more than one person, I love lots of people in my life, and you would love all your children equally. But there are different kinds of love, I love my Dad, and my best friend, but not the same. You love your spouse with a different kind of love, a physical love aswell. Yo need that deep emotional bond as two people in love witheach other to be husband and wife. You cant tell me you love your Mother the same way you love your wife, that would be worrying if you did.

You're defining love as an emotion

Of course love is an emotion!! Yes it is an action, but not only an action. You actions are defined byyour emotions. The way you talk is like, right I am going to choose to love that person now. Likewise you could say the same for any other 'emotion' like happiness or misery. I will now be happy, I will now choose to be sad. Thats so planned and robotic, and frankly, not normal.

Precisely. Again, you define love as a feeling, a state of mind, whereas I define it as a quality, an action, a verb, a choice. Love isn't a crater that we fall into

.

There's that saying you cant choose who you fall in love with. While I agree and disagree with that statement, the point its making is once ur in love with someone you cant just hop in and out, i love you today, now I dont, now I do, now I dont. It just doesnt work like that! If there are people who do that that then they are coldhearted. You cant pick out a stranger in the street and say, right I love them, which is basically what ur saying.

Again, fearing that the "other wife" is more attractive stems from an insecurity and scarcity mentality (he doesn't love me enough, I don't get enough affection, she has more of his appreciation than I do...).

You've taken my comments as insecurities. Of course it's nothing to do with that, I could then get jealous over Rob loving his sister or Mother which would be ridiculous. I suppose I am a lucky girl that I have found a husband like the one I do, who utterly loves and adores me, as I do him, and could never do what you suggested. Her would sooner stick pins in his eyes than have another woman aswell as me. That is because he is totally and utterly devoted to and in love with me and has given that type of love, for his spouse, his whole heart, as his wife. Reading what you have written makes me genuinely sorry for you and people who decide to 'choose' love as a state of mind. They are missing out on real love, big time, and that is really sad if thats all they'll settle for. Girls, (and guys) are you with me?? :)

By the way Crimson, are you married?

[CrimsonKairos]

You love your spouse with a different kind of love, a physical love aswell. Yo need that deep emotional bond as two people in love witheach other to be husband and wife.

If you're talking about sex or other displays of affection, are you saying that when Abraham had sex with Hagar it dissolved the physical love he shared with Sarah? I don't think it has to be exclusive. It's not like only one bond can exist at the same time.

Of course love is an emotion!!

I disagree. Love is what we do because of what we feel. Affection, sexual attraction, appreciation, respect...these emotions usually prompt people to marry and have the physical relationship you speak of. It's not called "making love" for no reason. Love is what we do, not what we feel. This is largely semantic so I won't pursue this line of thought further. :)

You actions are defined byyour emotions.

What do you mean? I'm not clear on what you're saying.

The way you talk is like, right I am going to choose to love that person now.

What you probably meant to type was, "right I am going to choose to be physically attracted to that person now." Love is actions. So yes, I can choose to love/serve someone. No, I don't think I can make myself be attracted equally to every woman, and thank goodness that's not what polygamy's about.

I will now be happy, I will now choose to be sad. Thats so planned and robotic, and frankly, not normal.

Opinion noted. :) The key to happiness is not in the circumstances we find ourselves in, but in how we respond to those circumstances. Happiness is a choice. Trust me, I've tested this statement during the last 17 months. We do choose to feel miserable or happy. If I get kicked in the gut I can't say, "I choose not to have my nerves register pain," but I can choose whether or not to be mad at the person kicking me.

I dislike the culture of emotion that is all about "go with your emotions, what you feel is paramount," etc... The word "emotion" comes from the Latin "emovere," which breaks down to e- (variant of ex-) "out" + movere "move". Emotion literally means "outward motion" or movement from within. I believe it's possible to control and direct these movements from deep within ourselves. It may not be possible to create movements from within, but we can control them and be their master, not the other way around.

Am I a master? Nope. Can I force myself to be sexually attracted to every woman equally? Nope. Can I choose to serve and support anyone I want? Yep.

There's that saying you cant choose who you fall in love with.

Drugstore psychology. Hate it. I will choose who I spend eternity with, not some unseen, mercurial force called "true love." Bleh. B)

You cant pick out a stranger in the street and say, right I love them, which is basically what ur saying.

Depends on what you mean by love. If you mean a feeling, a sensation of thinking of someone else all day and smiling when you say their name and burning with the desire to hold them and be with them...no, I don't think you can or should try to force that. But that's not what I call love. Again, we're kicking the semantic soccer ball back and forth without much progress so I'll throw in the towel. :)

You've taken my comments as insecurities. Of course it's nothing to do with that, I could then get jealous over Rob loving his sister or Mother which would be ridiculous.

If it's not jealousy over the husband feeling fond of or affectionate towards another woman, it can only be one other thing:

It boils down to jealousy over a husband having a physical relationship with a woman other than yourself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not natural to feel that way. I am saying, however, that it's something that can be overcome and has been successfully overcome by men and women in ages past who've practiced polygamy as God intended it (I'm thinking Bible examples here).

I suppose I am a lucky girl that I have found a husband like the one I do, who utterly loves and adores me, as I do him,

Congrats, that's what everyone aspires to. :)

Reading what you have written makes me genuinely sorry for you and people who decide to 'choose' love as a state of mind.

Similarly, I feel sorry for people who are tossed to and fro with every wind of feeling that blows by.

By the way Crimson, are you married?

Life has conspired in such a way that it's not possible for me to get out of the house let alone date let alone marry anyone right now. But I have been engaged for all intents and purposes...then enter the mission and the dear john letter. Ah well, that was years ago. I haven't found a woman lately who I can respect enough to give the V.I.P. seat that's reserved for someone amazing.

[a-train]

CK,

Get off the computer and go on a date holmes!

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

True dat...true dat. B)

[Guest mamacat]

The idea makes me sick to my core. I feel it is wrong and unless the Lord directs us otherwise, I will continue to hold that position.

And if directed, it would be a difficult thing to do. Some of the thoughts expressed in this thread that trouble me is that they come off as gleefully hoping for its return which IMO is extremly disrespectful to ones wife and ones family.

My wife is the ONLY one I will EVER be with and I would never dishonor her with a second wife even if it were legal or even encouraged.

1 man for 1 woman. There was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Adam and Eve and Mary and Sara and Tina and Liz and etc.

If Adam and Eve were able to replenish the entire earth from just those 2, then that is good enough for me.

my first impulse is to agree with this sentiment. but i did do some soul searching...and internet searching, on the nature of polygamy to try to understand it. and what put my mind at rest were the following words of Brigham Young, which i found on an LDS blog ~

Interestingly, Brigham Young indicated at least once that a key reason for polygamy was to compensate for the tendency of many men to not marry, thus providing an opportunity for more women to enjoy the blessings of marriage. Here is a fascinating quotation from a talk given in 1868, parts of which are also quoted by Kathryn Daynes:

There is a little matter I want to speak upon to you, my sisters. It is a subject that is very obnoxious to outsiders. They have given us the credit for industry and prudence; but we have one doctrine in our faith that to their view is erroneous, and very bad; it is painful to think of. Shall I tell you what it is sisters? "Oh," says one, "I know what you mean, my husband has two, four, or half a dozen wives." Well, I want to tell the sisters how to free themselves from this odium as many of them consider it. This doctrine so hateful and annoying to the feelings of many, was revealed from heaven to Joseph Smith, and obedience is required to it by the Latter-day Saints,-this very principle will work out the moral salvation of the world. Do you believe it? It makes no difference whether you do or not, it is true. It is said that women rule among all nations; and if the women, not only in this congregation, Territory and government, but the world, would rise up in the spirit and might of the holy gospel and make good men of those who are bad, and show them that they will be under the necessity of marrying a wife or else not have a woman at all, they would soon come to the mark. Yes, this odious doctrine will work out the moral reformation and salvation of this generation. People generally do not see it; my sisters do not see it; and I do not know that all the elders of Israel see it. But if this course be pursued, and we make this the rule of practice, it will force all men to take a wife. Then we will be satisfied with one wife. I should have been in the beginning; the one wife system would not have disagreed with me at all. If the prophet had said to me, "Brother Brigham, you can never have but one wife at a time." I should have said, "glory, hallelujah, that is just what I like." But he said, "you will have to take more than one wife, and this order has to spread and increase until the inhabitants of the earth repent of their evils and men will do what is right towards the females. In this also I say glory, hallelujah. Do men do that which is right now? No. You see travelers-young, middle-aged, or old-roaming over the world, and ask them where their families are, and the answer will generally be, "I have none." You go to the city of New York, and among the merchants there I doubt whether there is one man in three who has a wife. Go to the doctor and ask him, "where is your wife and family?" and, "thank God I have none," will be his reply. It is the same with the lawyer. Ask him about his wife, and his reply will be, "O bless me, I havn't [haven't] any, I say it to my praise, I am not troubled with a family." You to the parson, and were it not for his profession, the cloak of religion that is around him, not one in a thousand of them would have wife or children.

Do not be startled, my sisters; do not be at all afraid; just get influence enough among the daughters of Eve in the midst of this generation until you have power enough over the males to bring them to their senses so that they will act according to the rule of right, and you will see that we will be free at once, and the elders of Israel will not be under the necessity of taking so many women. But we shall continue to do it until God tell us to stop, or until we pass into sin and iniquity, which will never be. . . .

Now, sisters, I want you to see to this. I advise you to have faith and good works; be fervent in spirit and virtue, and try to live so as to bring the men to the standard of right, then we shall have no trouble at all. I believe that in Massachusetts they have only 27,000 more women than men; but that is not many. There is a cause, perhaps, for this. A good many young men go into the army, or go here or there. What is done with the daughters of Eve? In many countries they stick them in the factories, into the fields, the coal mines, and into the streets-as I have seen hundreds of them-gathering manure, &c., working all day and getting a penny at night to buy a loaf of bread with. They stick some of them down into the iron works, under the ground to pack the ore, or into the building to lug off the iron. But the young men are sent to the wars. When England and the rest of the nations learn war no more, instead of passing a law in this or any other nation against a man having more than one wife, they will pass a law to make men do as they should in honoring the daughters of Eve and making wives of and providing for them. Will not this be a happy time? Yes, very fine. If you will produce this to-day, I'll tell you what I would be willing to do, I would be willing to give up half or two-thirds of my wives, or to let the whole of them go, if it was necessary, if those who should take them would lead them to eternal salvation.

--Brigham Young, Discourse given at the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Aug. 9th, 1868, Journal of Discourses, 12: 261-262.

So, in terms of the allowing more women to marry, maybe polygamy wasn't such a terrible idea after all. Maybe the Lord wasn't crazy in having this temporary practice during the early days of the Church. But I'm still glad it's over. And let's keep it that way: come on, you single men who aren't planning on marriage, quit wasting time! If you don't shape up, there's a risk that - gasp - polygamy will come back to take up the slack.

from http://mormanity.blogspot.com/search?q=polygamy%2C+young

another interesting view on the reality of polygamy, from the same blog ~

But from Brigham Young's pronouncement that he would rather be the corpse in a funeral procession than have to accept the doctrine of polygamy [Journal of Discourses, 3:266] to the dozens of elders incarcerated in Territorial prison for their devotion to the practice to a generation of uniquely stressful marital relations for men and women alike, polygamy was far removed from the male paradise of fiction. Plural marriage was in practice a painful struggle against consciences shaped by Puritan values that most members, converts from Protestant faiths, shared. Domestic arrangements were inconvenient, fraught with jealousies, and, after the first wave of antipolygamy legislation, hampered by flight, concealment, and frequent relocations.

Also at odds with the fictional portrayal of the practice is the fact that in 1852, the same year that polygamy was publicly announced as a principle, Utah passed a divorce statute "that provided women much more control over their lives than was given by any other divorce statute of the nineteenth century, save only that of Indiana." [Louis Kern, An Ordered Love: Sex Roles and Sexuality in Victorian Utopia--the Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 191.] In an 1861 address, Brigham Young stated that "when a woman becomes alienated in her feelings and affections from her husband, it is his duty to give her a bill and set her free." Even more surprisingly, he claimed that for a husband to continue cohabiting with such a wife was tantamount to fornication. [Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1986) 92-93.] Such opinions were clearly not meant merely for show. During his presidency, Young granted 1,645 divorces.[ibid., 91. Also see Eugene E. Campbell and Bruce L. Campbell, "Divorce Among Mormon Polygamists: Extent and Explanations," Utah Historical Quarterly 46 (winter 1978): 4-23.]

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2004/06/terr...n-polygamy.html

Brigham Young seems to have had more enlightened feelings toward women than many of his modern counterparts.

interesting, and quite enlightening.

[CrimsonKairos]

Methinks he had a point.