I keep finding advantages to plural marriage

[Guest]

On 10/22/2018 at 9:45 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

This almost seems like an OT style/culture thing that I'm not sure applies to today's thinking, etc. Take children, for example. The same sort of thing is seen in OT writing...favorite children, etc....but who would dare, in today's world, actually specify a "favorite" child -- even if secretly it was true. I suspect the same would be the case in plural marriage. I know that were I in that situation I would not dare let one wife know that the other was preferred and would go to great lengths to insure everyone felt equally loved and cared for. Happy wife, happy life -- right? The rhyme doesn't hold with plural marriage (well, it sort of could if "lives" meant "the lives of all involved") but the principle still seems pretty sound.

On 10/22/2018 at 9:59 AM, Anddenex said:

True, my statement was in response to the following from @classylady, "And those wives would make sure no one wife was favored." The idea of "favorite" would surely rise in polygamy I would think (Agreed though, would we admit it?).

I mean, my brothers and I know our sister is mom's favorite (Mom denies it though).

Well, the rhyme might hold water if we say, "Happy wives, happy lives - right"?

My children often come to me and ask if they are my favorites.  I tell them all, "yes." 

Child 1: "But DAAAADddd!!! You said I'M you're favorite."

ME: "And you are."

Child 2: "But DAAADddd!!"  ....

 

I change it up a bit sometimes.

Quote

No, the ladybug is my favorite son.  Bubba, you're my favorite daughter.

OR

No, Phoenix is my favorite because he's the only one who doesn't keep asking me all the time.

[wenglund]

15 hours ago, lostinwater said:

What i meant to convey is that It comes down to whether or not one believes God commanded it.  

Correct.This is true for less controversial practices and even more controversial practices (animal sacrifice being an example).

I suspect that one's belief on this and other matters has much to do with with how one goes about determining if God commanded it or not. 

Quote

i don't, others do.  i respect if others believe God did.  That said, that respect does not extend to the utilization of coercive or manipulative tactics - however well meaning - to get people to participate in the practice.

 Coercion and manipulation are oft in the eye of the beholder, particularly when assessing practices in the distant past by contemporary standards. I am ambivalent about shotgun marriages during the old West, though I respect that they aren't appropriate today.

This also holds true for practices that continue today. Arranged marriages can reasonably be viewed as coercive and manipulative, though they work well for certain cultures. It may not be for me, but I can respect their different beliefs even given the supposed coercion and manipulation.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mordorbund]

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Arranged marriages can reasonably be viewed as coercive and manipulative,

[wenglund]

7 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

As I said, corcion and manipulation are in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[classylady]

On 10/23/2018 at 11:54 AM, Vort said:

I had never really thought about this topic in the following terms, but it occurred to me that plural marriage was practiced in the Church for a period of only about 55 or so years, or about two generations -- less than that if we're talking about publicly acknowledged plural marriage. We have literally lived more than twice as long without plural marriage in the Church than we have with. Yet "polygamy" still manages to be a defining feature of our religion. Kind of strange, when thought about in those terms. But of course those two generations were the founding generations of the Church, and plural marriage is baked into our scriptural canon (especially the Doctrine and Covenants), so the issue can never fully die. But it's entirely possible that my lifetime could encompass the time when the Church has been non-polygamous for over 75% of its existence.

Your above statement, “We have literally lived more than twice as long without plural marriage in the Church than we have with.” started me thinking about my family history. One of my maternal great grandmothers married her husband in 1888. She was the second wife. I was three years old in 1958 when she passed away. The first wife passed away that same year. My great grandfather had passed away prior to me being born. What this means is that some polygamist marriages, those performed before the Manifesto, were still functioning within my lifetime. I find this fascinating! It really is close to home. My grandparents have always spoken highly of their childhood and growing up with so many siblings.

This particular great grandmother was also a child from a polygamist household. Her mother was the third wife. My great grandmother had this to say in her journal: “I am grateful for polygamy, which gave me such fine brothers and sisters... I am grateful that as a heritage it seemed easy for me to accept and live happily in polygamy as one of my Father’s numerous posterity. And I leave my testimony as to its power in developing Christian ideals of unselfishness and it’s marvelous experiencing of love and deep consideration of the feelings of others, which we must all learn if we are to gain the Eternal Salvation.”

She further had this to say about her husband and his first wife: “l met xxxx in 1887.  I thought him one of the finest, best-natured men who had ever come into my life. ...he wrote mother asking her consent for him to court me. ...we corresponded... My appreciation for him as a man of real worth, as the prospective father of the family I wanted to have grew. ... it was a period of secret and very difficult courtship for me. Polygamists were being hunted down and imprisoned daily, but it mattered little to those who believed in, and honored this sacred principle as had been taught us to do. 

Mrs. xxxx “(always called Polly) was very nice to me. Said she’d rather he’d marry me than any girl she knew — ‘though she didn’t see why he need choose one so pretty.’ “ Mr. xxxx “gave me every opportunity to really become acquainted with her, since I insisted this should be the basis upon which my consent to marry should rest. Every experience at that time served to convince me of the sincerity of purpose of this noble woman. It must have been a real trial in those and earlier days in our church for the women in Mormondom to share their husbands, thus making possible the marriage of many girls who otherwise might never have known the joys of motherhood with such fine men as Bro. Xxxx type to be fathers to large families. My tribute to “Aunt Polly”, as we always called her, is one of true sincerity. She has always been wonderful to me throughout our long acquaintance and companionship”...

This is what Mrs. Xxxx (first wife) had to say: “At this peak of our prosperity my husband was prompted to take a second wife. It seemed a noble thing for him to do, especially when it was almost certain to result in a term in the State prison. ... I am sure that my convictions in the soundness of the principle would have enabled me to suppress every urge to jealousy...”.      One of our family stories is where Mrs. Xxxx made a beautiful dress for my great grandmother to wear during their courtship.

I have many family histories where the practice of polygamy was noble and inspired. I’m very grateful for the rich heritage I have and I’m proud of this heritage.

[Midwest LDS]

6 hours ago, classylady said:

Your above statement, “We have literally lived more than twice as long without plural marriage in the Church than we have with.” started me thinking about my family history. One of my maternal great grandmothers married her husband in 1888. She was the second wife. I was three years old in 1958 when she passed away. The first wife passed away that same year. My great grandfather had passed away prior to me being born. What this means is that some polygamist marriages, those performed before the Manifesto, were still functioning within my lifetime. I find this fascinating! It really is close to home. My grandparents have always spoken highly of their childhood and growing up with so many siblings.

This particular great grandmother was also a child from a polygamist household. Her mother was the third wife. My great grandmother had this to say in her journal: “I am grateful for polygamy, which gave me such fine brothers and sisters... I am grateful that as a heritage it seemed easy for me to accept and live happily in polygamy as one of my Father’s numerous posterity. And I leave my testimony as to its power in developing Christian ideals of unselfishness and it’s marvelous experiencing of love and deep consideration of the feelings of others, which we must all learn if we are to gain the Eternal Salvation.”

She further had this to say about her husband and his first wife: “l met xxxx in 1887.  I thought him one of the finest, best-natured men who had ever come into my life. ...he wrote mother asking her consent for him to court me. ...we corresponded... My appreciation for him as a man of real worth, as the prospective father of the family I wanted to have grew. ... it was a period of secret and very difficult courtship for me. Polygamists were being hunted down and imprisoned daily, but it mattered little to those who believed in, and honored this sacred principle as had been taught us to do. 

Mrs. xxxx “(always called Polly) was very nice to me. Said she’d rather he’d marry me than any girl she knew — ‘though she didn’t see why he need choose one so pretty.’ “ Mr. xxxx “gave me every opportunity to really become acquainted with her, since I insisted this should be the basis upon which my consent to marry should rest. Every experience at that time served to convince me of the sincerity of purpose of this noble woman. It must have been a real trial in those and earlier days in our church for the women in Mormondom to share their husbands, thus making possible the marriage of many girls who otherwise might never have known the joys of motherhood with such fine men as Bro. Xxxx type to be fathers to large families. My tribute to “Aunt Polly”, as we always called her, is one of true sincerity. She has always been wonderful to me throughout our long acquaintance and companionship”...

This is what Mrs. Xxxx (first wife) had to say: “At this peak of our prosperity my husband was prompted to take a second wife. It seemed a noble thing for him to do, especially when it was almost certain to result in a term in the State prison. ... I am sure that my convictions in the soundness of the principle would have enabled me to suppress every urge to jealousy...”.      One of our family stories is where Mrs. Xxxx made a beautiful dress for my great grandmother to wear during their courtship.

I have many family histories where the practice of polygamy was noble and inspired. I’m very grateful for the rich heritage I have and I’m proud of this heritage.

Thank you for posting that family story. What a beautiful testimony from these two women! I always appreciate testimonies that show it wasn't just these poor, oppressed women being forced into bondage, but a living and breathing part of their testimonies. In fact, quoting the Institute manual on the history of the church, which is itself quoting an earlier work by Joseph F. Smith, we see that Latter-day Saint women were opposed to being thought of as victims. This section is talking about opposition to the Cullom anti-polygamy bill.

"“While they opposed all the features of the anti-‘Mormon’ legislation, their action was principally in protest against the measures, and the remarks of would-be reformers, in which the women of the Church were spoken of as being ‘down-trodden’ and ‘degraded’ by their husband-oppressors.” Opposition by Latter-day Saint women was a great surprise to politicians and suffragettes, who saw them as the epitome of suffering and bondage."

I actually read this manual on my mission. I bought it for 3 dollars in 2005 from the church, and the history within is detailed and thorough, disproving claims that the church was ever "hiding" it's history.

I'm not blind, and I know polgamy was difficult on women, and some men and women abused the practice terribly. But the vast majority of faithful Latter-day Saints of both genders did their best to live the law according to God's command. This was not coercion but faith. I think it would be a hard law to live and I'm glad God does not require it today, but it WAS a divine commandment from God to his prophet when it was enacted and I fully support and admire these early brethern and sisters for attempting to follow God's commands, no matter how difficult.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Guest Scott]

Quote

i don't believe that God wants (or ever wanted) polygamy.  Not in the time of Joseph Smith, and not in the bible either.  And that it is one of the things that people said God said because they wanted it

For what's is worth, our written Church History says that it was meant to be a trial, rather than something that was wanted. A lot of people didn't want to do it for reasons other than simply being obedient to the commandment.  

Here is one article on lds.org saying what happened in the Church:

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

Excerpts:

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.

Fragmentary evidence suggests that Joseph Smith acted on the angel’s first command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s. Several Latter-day Saints who had lived in Kirtland reported decades later that Joseph Smith had married Alger, who lived and worked in the Smith household, after he had obtained her consent and that of her parents.  Little is known about this marriage, and nothing is known about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger. After the marriage with Alger ended in separation, Joseph seems to have set the subject of plural marriage aside until after the Church moved to Nauvoo, Illinois.

...

Latter-day Saints’ motives for plural marriage were often more religious than economic or romantic. Besides the desire to be obedient, a strong incentive was the hope of living in God’s presence with family members. In the revelation on marriage, the Lord promised participants “crowns of eternal lives” and “exaltation in the eternal worlds.”17 Men and women, parents and children, ancestors and progeny were to be “sealed” to each other—their commitment lasting into the eternities, consistent with Jesus’s promise that priesthood ordinances performed on earth could be “bound in heaven.”

...

Some Saints also saw plural marriage as a redemptive process of sacrifice and spiritual refinement. According to Helen Mar Kimball, Joseph Smith stated that “the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the Saints would ever have to test their faith.” Though it was one of the “severest” trials of her life, she testified that it had also been “one of the greatest blessings.”46 Her father, Heber C. Kimball, agreed. “I never felt more sorrowful,” he said of the moment he learned of plural marriage in 1841. “I wept days. … I had a good wife. I was satisfied.

The decision to accept such a wrenching trial usually came only after earnest prayer and intense soul-searching. Brigham Young said that, upon learning of plural marriage, “it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave.” “I had to pray unceasingly,” he said, “and I had to exercise faith and the Lord revealed to me the truth of it and that satisfied me.” Heber C. Kimball found comfort only after his wife Vilate had a visionary experience attesting to the rightness of plural marriage. “She told me,” Vilate’s daughter later recalled, “she never saw so happy a man as father was when she described the vision and told him she was satisfied and knew it was from God.”

Lucy Walker recalled her inner turmoil when Joseph Smith invited her to become his wife. “Every feeling of my soul revolted against it,” she wrote. Yet, after several restless nights on her knees in prayer, she found relief as her room “filled with a holy influence” akin to “brilliant sunshine.” She said, “My soul was filled with a calm sweet peace that I never knew,” and “supreme happiness took possession of my whole being.”

Not all had such experiences. Some Latter-day Saints rejected the principle of plural marriage and left the Church, while others declined to enter the practice but remained faithful. Nevertheless, for many women and men, initial revulsion and anguish was followed by struggle, resolution, and ultimately, light and peace. Sacred experiences enabled the Saints to move forward in faith.

 As far as jealousy goes, by reading historical accounts (including those from my own family), it seems that it was usually the first wife who struggled the most with jealousy.  The second (or third and so on) wives were usually younger and often feared by the older wife as being more beautiful.   

From a practical standpoint, the only way polygamy works without an excess of women is if the majority of the men practicing marry much younger women than they are. 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Scott