Posted on 11/05/2014 7:40:17 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
This is my response to the Plural Marriage in Kirkland and Nauvoo essay posted last week to LDS.org.
A couple of years ago I was talking to my 16-17 year old Sunday School class about polygamy. They raised it – not me. Our conversation was about the early practice of Mormon polygamy and how it came about. The girls in the class turned up their noses and looked aghast while one boy responded to Joseph Smith’s revelation on polygamy with a snort, and a, ‘Yeah right! That’s convenient!’
To say that polygamy has been a singular nuisance to the church is an understatement. Over the years various discourses have been raised to counter the repugnance that many, inside and outside of the church feel for the practice.
The Wastach Front is filled with the descendants of multiple wife practitioners and it ‘fulfilled a glorious purpose’.
It’s been a great source of strength to the church today.
It gave homes and shelter for single women.
Our great church leaders came from these homes.
Spirit babies are awaiting mortal tabernacles,
Blah, blah, blah…
The thing is I DON’T CARE. I find it a repellent, dehumanizing practice that reduced females to brood mares and turned Utah into a pious stud farm. Furthermore it has historically quashed some of my enthusiasm for a happy afterlife, particularly in contexts when I’ve been told that my husband will be required to pick up further wives as a matter of eternal course.
There hasn’t been once in my 39 years of being a Mormon that I have ever had the slightest modicum of spiritual feeling for the practice – other than abhorrence. So there is absolutely nothing the church can say, whether through essays, declarations or apologetics that will sway me on the matter. I see it as little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes. So LDS.org doesn’t get a pass from me for their unpunctual candor. Good on them for finally broaching a tricky topic and publically admitting Joseph’s theological inventiveness that shaped several generations of Mormon discourse, but it doesn’t go far enough. Perhaps its time to drop the ‘righteous polygamy’ story entirely; along with everything else that has adhered to it over the years.
So here’s my take on the historical matter. I like to think of Emma Smith as the other half of Joseph’s prophetic mission. When Emma said ‘no’ to his calls for her polyandrous compliance he should have stopped. Emma’s guidance and criticism on the practice should have brought Joseph’s enthusiasm for multiple wifery to a screaming halt. If Joseph had listened to his wife on the matter the story of Mormonism would have played out quite differently, and ultimately with less controversy and more ease, and less fear, paranoia, secrecy and pain.
And for me, that very reluctance on the part of the masculine church to admit the voice of women – in all matters – has been its bane.
I don’t have a testimony of flaming swords; angels commanding the practice; novel revelations, (Section 132). Nor do I believe in the divinity of these strange dalliances and couplings. This is not to say that I have dismissed Joseph entirely. He was a cad, but he was a mad and bold visionary who was as audacious as he was quixotic. I would have loved Joseph the Prophet. I would have sat at his feet and soaked in his emergent and brilliant theology; I would have been loyal to him; I would have followed him and believed in his vision of the heavens and my eternal potential.
But if Joseph had come a sniffing around my daughter I would have kicked him in the nuts and sent him home to his wife.
To keep this thing relevant to the topic of the thread, Amasa Lyman was converted and knew Joseph Smith and his revelation about multiple wives. Lyman had eight wives. They are listed on wikipedia under his name.
I found a picture of David's stone on findagrave; the whole cemetery is there. It's a beautiful stone. Before all I had seen was a transcription of it.
My gr gr grandfather is buried there along with other relatives. There is no history of Mormonism in my direct lineage that I've been able to find but they did baptise for the dead my gr gr gr grandparents in Northern New Hampshire.
(1) On Marriage and 1-1:
Marriage is not necessarily a one to one relationship. It can be a one to many relationship or a many to many relationship. Christ said only that marriage was permanent, but never that it was exclusively 1 to 1.
(2) We are not animals:
IIRC it was your argument that we are male and female and thus monogamous. I merely used the examples of non human male and female to demonstrate that maleness and femaleness does not imply monogamy as you contend. That is all.
(3) Jews did not practice divorce.
I was not addressing divorce. I was addressing polygamy (and polyandry). Two different things. You brought up divorce, not me. You are confused because you think of marriage as exclusively a 1-1 relationship. See response to (1).
(4) at the time, polygamy out of favor. none of the rabbis of the talmud were polygamists.
true or false, or in between, dogmatically, it does not (or at least should not) matter if something is in favor or out of favor at a certain point in time.
Then "adultery" is the wrong word for the guilt of marrying another. Adultery, by definition, is intercourse with someone else's husband or wife. If you marry someone else, regardless if you put another wife away improperly, it could not be adultery.
IIRC it was your argument that we are male and female and thus monogamous.
Not just that we are made "male and female," but that Adam was given only one woman, Eve. It is with this same logic that Christ condemns divorce.
I was not addressing divorce. I was addressing polygamy (and polyandry).
You stated that polygamy was not condemned in the Old Testament. Thus I replied, neither was divorce. It is here condemned by Christ.
adultery is (whatever)
ok but we’re talking marriage, not adultery. There is no guilt associated with something (polygamy) that is not ever condemned.
adam was given only one woman
so what? never does that preclude many to one relationships. and why bring up just one example? why not bring up solomon, for example? and i thought the original thrust of your argument was that male and female somehow implied monogamy. you are straining and stretching.
with this same logic, Christ...
this is your inference, but it is not logically . inferred. let’s extract the essence of your logic, which is: “relationship R1 was 1 to 1. therefore all relationships R2, R3, ... R-infinity must be 1 to 1.” extrapolated without logical justification— yes. logically inferred— no.
so what if divorce was not condemned in the OT? I don’t know if it was or was not. I was not addressing divorce, only the polygamy type of marriage. You are the one who keeps bringing up straw person arguments concerning side issues. I am not here arguing against Christ condemning divorce, because you have not demonstrated that divorce is logically relevant to the topic of polygamy, at least in the sense that condemning one implies condemning the other.
Be logical first. Without logic, we abandon our reason to emotions. Then we start finding meanings that we want to find rather than meanings that are. History is full of wars that were fought over this type of stuff. I am not a fan of illogical religious wars. Alas, illogical religious wars continue.
Snicker. .. good one
Polygamy is actually an Old Testament practice, which was never challenged in the New Testament.
Now there you mrobisr, reading what the bible actually says., don`t you know that you will drive people crazy if you do it that way?
I could not care less how many virgins a moslem has.
I.E., a man, by marrying another, does not have a second lawful wife.
Not I.E.
— this in no way precludes polygamy, which is still lawful if the female that the man marries with is not married to any other man. technically, many hold that it does not even render (Thayer-) unlawful a married man having intercourse with an unmarried woman at all.
it is not clear to me what you are agreeing or disagreeing with... but whatever...
it is not clear to me what you are agreeing or disagreeing with... but whatever...
ravenwolf wrote:
Now there you go mrobisr, reading what the bible actually says., don`t you know that you will drive people crazy if you do it that way?
aha (it is late)...
aha (it is late)...
There is nothing Christian about Polygamy. Polygamy degrades & abuses women, period. We do not live under the old law.
there is nothing christian about starting from one’s preconceived notions. polygamy is a choice. choices do not degrade or abuse. you can choose your lifestyle. forcing your lifestyle on someone else is degrading and abusive.
only that it is late in the evening for me, nothing more. sorry not to be clear.
Every instance of polygamy in the old testament produced misery and Jesus was blunt about marriage being one man and one woman.
The 14 year olds had no choice. The 50 year olds faced old age being cast out in the wild if they didn’t submit. I’ve read some of their statements. He really was a cruel, calculating brute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.