Sister Pearson

[JonnieZ]

I saw Carol Lynn Pearson has published a new book concerning the negative affects of polygamy and the stigma it is for the Church, now and in the future. 

I have not read the book and doubt I will. Which means I need to confess that I did not know Ms. Pearson was still with us.

I still remember Sister Pearson's eloquent writings,  and discussions, about dealing with her former husband, who was gay and had contracted HIV. I would suggest it was Sister Pearson who started a change of heart in regards to gay (and lesbians) of members of the church. I am not suggesting she tried to make being gay OK (as far as the Church is concerned), but added to our consciousness that we treat such people like human beings.

I believe, as a church, she thinks we should divorce from polygamy. My thought on that is...I do know a few years back I had to email a full-time seminary teacher and tell him to layoff telling my daughter (daughters actually) she was going to be a polygamous wife. I also told him he was lucky she ( or my other daughters)  had not rearranged his nose.

I view polygamy different now. When I was 23 I thought if polygamy started again I could have multiple hot wives who were doctors and attorneys and chefs. Thirty years later I love my one wife who puts up with me, regardless of who I am, and could not imagine adding another person to that equation.

[Guest]

What a lot of people don't understand about me is I can imagine polygamy because I'm a single 21 year old guy. My views will probably change if I meet the love of my life.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, JonnieZ said:

I saw Carol Lynn Pearson has published a new book concerning the negative affects of polygamy and the stigma it is for the Church, now and in the future. 

I am reminded of Matthew 21:42-44 and Luke 20:17-18. We mustn’t allow anything the Lord has asked us to do to offend us, and when it does, or even if in our limited understanding feel we are rightly offended, mustn’t allow anything to prevent our repentance, conversion and healing (3 Nephi 9:13). He is greater than any of that.

[Just_A_Guy]

17 hours ago, JonnieZ said:

I still remember Sister Pearson's eloquent writings,  and discussions, about dealing with her former husband, who was gay and had contracted HIV. I would suggest it was Sister Pearson who started a change of heart in regards to gay (and lesbians) of members of the church. I am not suggesting she tried to make being gay OK (as far as the Church is concerned), but added to our consciousness that we treat such people like human beings.

I don't claim to know Sister Pearson's heart; but it seems to me that her writings have been almost universally taken to suggest that it is (or, at least, should be) OK to be a non-celibate gay as far as the Church is concerned.  Sister Pearson doesn't strike me as having done very much to correct that (mis?)perception.

Quote

I saw Carol Lynn Pearson has published a new book concerning the negative affects of polygamy and the stigma it is for the Church, now and in the future. 

I have not read the book and doubt I will. Which means I need to confess that I did not know Ms. Pearson was still with us.

. . . .

I believe, as a church, she thinks we should divorce from polygamy. My thought on that is...I do know a few years back I had to email a full-time seminary teacher and tell him to layoff telling my daughter (daughters actually) she was going to be a polygamous wife. I also told him he was lucky she ( or my other daughters)  had not rearranged his nose.

I've only heard third-party accounts of the newest book, though my (limited) perception of its content matches your own.

Quote

I view polygamy different now. When I was 23 I thought if polygamy started again I could have multiple hot wives who were doctors and attorneys and chefs. Thirty years later I love my one wife who puts up with me, regardless of who I am, and could not imagine adding another person to that equation.

I think one of the traps we fall into sometimes, is assuming that anyone who is open to the prospect of polygamy--whether it be now, or in the future--is per se acting out of lust or ambition or disenchantment with one's current marital partner.  This was a doctrine of the gospel that numerous Church members--male and female--obtained powerful testimonies of, and applied individually at great personal cost.  We owe those people much, much more than to smear them as sex-obsessed libertines or suggest that their initial family relationships were somehow dysfunctional.  (Not suggesting at all that you are doing so; I'm just suggesting that generally speaking there's much more to this issue than meets the eye.)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think one of the traps we fall into sometimes, is assuming that anyone who is open to the prospect of polygamy--whether it be now, or in the future--is per se acting out of lust or ambition or disenchantment with one's current marital partner. 

Well, Zarahemla all but admitted that is exactly his motivation.

17 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

What a lot of people don't understand about me is I can imagine polygamy because I'm a single 21 year old guy. My views will probably change if I meet the love of my life.

I don't think he really understands much about marriage.  Thus his attitude.  In fact, I found myself saying to my non-member friend (who asked about polygamy) that today's mentality and today's mores assume polygamy is about men having more sex.  When you think about it from a practical perspective, this simply isn't so.

The fact is that marriage is a heck-of-a-lot of work.  And a plural marriage is a plural-heck-of-a-lot-of-work.  Imagine trying to play referee between two or more wives.  Imagine trying to ease the jealousy.  Then from a logistical stand point, look at the scheduling of a huge family, let alone bedroom time.  What about finances?  Can you afford to support such a family?

The list goes on.  

Even if you somehow are able to make conjugal relations work, can one really expect that the rest of a plural marriage is some sort of "easy life" or life of pleasure?  It really isn't.

I'd daresay that one reason we don't practice it today is specifically because of today's mindset.  Look at the current divorce rates.  If we have trouble keeping one marriage together, can we really expect to keep a plural marriage together?

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

Zarahemla does not speak for me; and--with all due respect to him--I daresay an awful lot of Mormons would say the same thing.

[NeuroTypical]

17 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

What a lot of people don't understand about me is I can imagine polygamy because I'm a single 21 year old guy. My views will probably change if I meet the love of my life.

And then change again if she dies young and you meet another love of your life.

(Not that I'm wishing that on you or anyone.  May you have decades of blissful monogamy with nary a frown.)

[tesuji]

17 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

What a lot of people don't understand about me is I can imagine polygamy because I'm a single 21 year old guy. My views will probably change if I meet the love of my life.

I have no experience with polygamy, but from what I've read about it, it was very hard for the husband (and wives too I assume).

I am blessed to have married a wife who is a better person than I am, who puts up with me and understands that marriage means you stay committed even though the person you married (me) turns out to be a high-maintenance fool (that's me).

Having said all that - It is hard enough for me to be married to one wife (as great as she is). It is a good "hard" - it's certainly stretching and teaching me a lot.

BUT - I can only imagine being married to more than one wife just multiplies how hard it is. Maybe, for me, how having child number two made life so much harder that it was with just child number one?

I used to think polygamy was really weird. Now I realize it seemed that way because of the culture I grew up in. So I've tried to think above that old mindset. What's wrong with it? Nothing, if the Lord commands it. Abraham and others did it.

I will do polygamy or not, as the Lord commands. But I'm glad I don't have to right now.

Edited August 2, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

When I think about polygamy being practiced I think about it only during the Millennium and in the Celestial Kingdom when finances wont matter and we'll be on a terrestrial and then Celestial level. I never imagine being able to live polygamy on this Telestial world like the saints in the 1800s did.

[FogCity]

I understand and am at peace with the understanding that polygamy has its time and place in the gospel.  The one aspect that I still struggle with is Joseph Smith being confronted by an angel with a drawn sword ready to strike because he was reluctant to go forward with polygamy.  That seems in direct contrast to what we know about the character of God and the principle of free agency.  Its certainly not a testimony killer, but that story has always bothered me.

 

[Hemisphere]

I tend to say ( with HUGE wink) that one spouse is fulltime trouble, why would I want more. but then again my wife would be very unwilling to share even if it would be in some form permissive church wise or on a secular level. Besides, before the law it is always a mess. We don´t follow tv but when we hear about those shows with those polygamists, it is quite a sufficient warning not to even delve into the matter because it seems hardly worth the time, drama and effort. 

On a personal level, I could not see how one can love more than one person ( romantically ) if it is meant for eternity. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, FogCity said:

I understand and am at peace with the understanding that polygamy has its time and place in the gospel.  The one aspect that I still struggle with is Joseph Smith being confronted by an angel with a drawn sword ready to strike because he was reluctant to go forward with polygamy.  That seems in direct contrast to what we know about the character of God and the principle of free agency.  Its certainly not a testimony killer, but that story has always bothered me.

 

Interesting.  I'm not familiar with that particular imagery.  But I know that he was commanded to PREACH it or be removed from his position.  He was told that keys would be used against him if he did not preach it.  But that is the role of the prophet.  He must preach what the Lord tells him to.  Compare Jonah.

[FogCity]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Interesting.  I'm not familiar with that particular imagery.  But I know that he was commanded to PREACH it or be removed from his position.  He was told that keys would be used against him if he did not preach it.  But that is the role of the prophet.  He must preach what the Lord tells him to.  Compare Jonah.

• When God commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, FogCity said:

• When God commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

Thanks for the reference.

Quote

The one aspect that I still struggle with is...  That seems in direct contrast to what we know about the character of God... that story has always bothered me

I'd still compare it with what the Lord did to Jonah.  He didn't just put a sword to his throat.  He caused the wind and the waves to swallow up the ship until they tossed him overboard.  Then he sent a great fish to swallow him and begin to digest him.  If that isn't a death threat, I don't know anything that is.

Did you have a problem with the story of Jonah?

[FogCity]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Thanks for the reference.

I'd still compare it with what the Lord did to Jonah.  He didn't just put a sword to his throat.  He caused the wind and the waves to swallow up the ship until they tossed him overboard.  Then he sent a great fish to swallow him and begin to digest him.  If that isn't a death threat, I don't know anything that is.

Did you have a problem with the story of Jonah?

No, but in my admittedly flawed mind I've always considered that Old Testament/occasionally head-scratching sort of stuff

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, FogCity said:

No, but in my admittedly flawed mind I've always considered that Old Testament/occasionally head-scratching sort of stuff

Well, that is why I pointed it out.  Sometimes, we have to look at other things just to know we're being consistent.  And it looks like you placed a different status on Jonah than you did on Joseph.

Just trying to help you sort it out.

[zil]

2 hours ago, FogCity said:

The one aspect that I still struggle with is Joseph Smith being confronted by an angel with a drawn sword ready to strike because he was reluctant to go forward with polygamy.  That seems in direct contrast to what we know about the character of God and the principle of free agency. 

Interesting, given the whole scriptural account (as in all scriptures from the OT through the Articles of Faith), it doesn't seem so out of place to me.

Edited August 3, 2016 by zil

[JonnieZ]

Just-A-Guy,

I do not disagree with anything you typed. I think, when I saw the book, and it was CLP who wrote it, I was surprised she was still alive. In my hermit like world I had lost touch with what I personally call the LDS pop culture.

[LeSellers]

On 8/3/2016 at 6:35 PM, zil said:

On 8/2/2016 at 3:43 PM, FogCity said:

The one aspect that I still struggle with is Joseph Smith being confronted by an angel with a drawn sword ready to strike because he was reluctant to go forward with polygamy.  That seems in direct contrast to what we know about the character of God and the principle of free agency. 

Interesting, given the whole scriptural account (as in all scriptures from the OT through the Articles of Faith), it doesn't seem so out of place to me.

I love the story of Balaam and his ass: an angel with a drawn sword, threatening to kill the prophet for a future event.

Lehi

Edited August 4, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

On 8/2/2016 at 3:43 PM, FogCity said:

I understand and am at peace with the understanding that polygamy has its time and place in the gospel.  The one aspect that I still struggle with is Joseph Smith being confronted by an angel with a drawn sword ready to strike because he was reluctant to go forward with polygamy.  That seems in direct contrast to what we know about the character of God and the principle of free agency.  Its certainly not a testimony killer, but that story has always bothered me.

On the other hand . . . Wilford Woodruff was very clear that if the prophet is "leading the church astray", God would remove the prophet from his place. 

Brian Hales has an interesting proposed paradigm about the angel-with-the-drawn-sword issue.  Drawing (I think) on hearsay accounts from Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Hales suggests that these visits were years apart.  The idea is that Smith gets the original revelation as he is doing the JST in 1830-31, but procrastinates obedience for four years.  The first angel visit in 1835 precipitates Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger.  But Emma finds out, it ends . . . badly, and Joseph retreats.  Around 1840 Joseph gets another visit.  At this point he attempts to comply in a way that is more sensitive to Emma's feelings, by entering almost exclusively into platonic "eternity-only" sealings with women who are already married for time.  But this isn't the sort of polygamy that the angel had in mind, and there's another visit in late 1841 or 1842; at which point Joseph finally begins practicing polygamy "properly" by marrying single women of child-bearing age.  By autumn of 1843 Emma is getting restless again and, after a brief period of acceptance, has turned against polygamy.  In the face of her opposition Joseph stops marrying new wives, goes so far as to officially end at least a couple of his marriages, and (as I recall) seems not to have cohabited with any of his plural wives beyond that point. 

And to that paradigm, I would just add that interestingly enough--by the next summer, Joseph Smith was dead.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On the other hand . . . Wilford Woodruff was very clear that if the prophet is "leading the church astray", God would remove the prophet from his place. 

Brian Hales has an interesting proposed paradigm about the angel-with-the-drawn-sword issue.  Drawing (I think) on hearsay accounts from Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Hales suggests that these visits were years apart.  The idea is that Smith gets the original revelation ...

And to that paradigm, I would just add that interestingly enough--by the next summer, Joseph Smith was dead.

Wow.  That was good.  I'd never thought of it that way.  It does sound compelling when told in that context.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

I second the wow.  That's what we in fandom circles call "headcanon".  It ain't canon, but we get to believe it's true as we go about filling in the gaps in our own heads.  

[tesuji]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On the other hand . . . Wilford Woodruff was very clear that if the prophet is "leading the church astray", God would remove the prophet from his place. 

This is the key point. Joseph was the head of the church, "serving at the pleasure" of the Lord. The Lord says in the D&C that if Joseph doesn't obey God in his role as prophet and head of the church, he will be removed from that role. 

This is different from you and me, and our general obedience to the commandments. I doubt the Lord is going to send me a threatening angel if I don't pay my tithing, for example.

I have always liked the angel with the sword story, because it shows that Joseph did not want do to polygamy. Unlike how his enemies portrayed him, he didn't come up with the idea out of lustful, etc desires. It was a huge trial for him - his life with Emma was hell because of it.

But he obeyed anyway. A great example for us.

Edited August 4, 2016 by tesuji

[Blackmarch]

personally id rather be commanded to live polagamy or polyandry than be commanded to take up arms such as the israelites were in the OT

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

personally id rather be commanded to live polagamy or polyandry than be commanded to take up arms such as the israelites were in the OT

The worst for me as a vegetarian and animal rights activist and donator would be if animal sacrifice were ever brought back. That would be enough for me to peace out. I'm not killing an innocent animal, send me to the lower kingdoms of glory if you must, as long as I get to be with the animals.