posted
Now, before I start this thread I want to clearly state that the question about to be asked is not meant to be a red rag to a bull but a genuine request for an answer. Also, if this thread decends into a 'fisticuff' I will delete this thread. Please be aware that I am not in the US time zone so it may get deleted a little late.
I was talking to my other half about Hatrack, and we moved on to talking about LDSs.
He mentioned that he had seen a BBC documenatry and there was a guy claiming to be a Mormon who had many wives and had married his daughter.
Having spent so much time in Hatrack, I am very aware that the question of poligamy is one that the LDSs view with distain and bordom. No doubt you have had to answer it many times, even when it is asked in provocation. I am also aware that all of you believe strongly in marriage (to one person) and your community.
However, in the 6 years I have been here, I have not read a disinterested opinion on poligamy within the Mormon church or why some Mormons (or people who claim to be Mormons) have been interviewed by the BBC and say they have many wives etc.
So, I would be grateful to know:
What is the Mormon perspective with regards to Poligamy? How the BBC interviewed a person claiming to be Mormon who had many wives? How Mormons view those who claim to be Mormons who have many wives?
Thank you in advance for not allowing this thread to be derailed.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firebird, don't hit me, but what name were you posting under other than this, I've been curious about that a few days, if it isn't common knowledge, you don't have to say.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polygamist splinter groups sometimes self-identify as "Mormon". However, they are specifically excluded from the Church. So they're not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whatever they claim to be.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We tend to be very conscious of the Mormons-are-polygamists stereotype. For instance, my (male) manager took me and two other women out to lunch to celebrate the completion of a very difficult project that all of us contributed greatly to. When the waitress asked how the bill would be handled, my manager said he'd take it (he had the company credit card--no, he's not that generous). One of the other women at the table said, "Our husband will be paying for it."
We all laughed because it is funny considering we're in Utah. I have to admit, though, I'm repulsed by and afraid of the splinter groups who claim to be Mormon and who marry multiple women, especially young girls and relatives. I feel for the women and wonder why they don't get out. I'm frustrated that these kind of people are self-identifying with the group that I am proud to be a member of.
So there are mixed feelings. Definitely.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the Mormon perspective with regards to Poligamy?
That is is a practice that is correct and good when God commands it, such as with the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and in the 1800s.
quote:How the BBC interviewed a person claiming to be Mormon who had many wives?
When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy about 100 years ago, groups of people did not stop. They may call themselves Mormons, but any member of the LDS church that practices polygamy will get excommunicated from the church.
quote: How Mormons view those who claim to be Mormons who have many wives?
Simultaneously as a group of crazies that have nothing to do with us and as an embarrasing break-away group that we wish had nothing to do with us.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I feel for the women and wonder why they don't get out.
Not all the women who do this are victims.
A good friend of my aunt married a girl that grew up in a polygamist family in Wyoming. She was a member of the LDS Church and said she wanted nothing to do with polygamy. But after several years of marriage, she told him that he needed to find a second wife or she would leave him. He did so and they were both excommunicated from the church.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to put my own two cents in, Mormons may have practiced polygamy at one time, but it was never appropriate or right to marry one's own daughter.
This event has never been sanctified by the LDS church.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yes, thanks, Zarex. I hadn't even noticed that.
That should be your first clue that something is wrong with what this guy's saying, and that he may be out of touch with reality.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone: I feel for the women and wonder why they don't get out.
It's my understanding that some of the polygamous cults (I'm thinking of the Jeffs cult, especially, here) don't give the women enough freedom for them to be able to get out, and that if they do get away somehow, the men go out and haul them back if they can find them. I certainly don't think its as easy as those women being able to just get up and walk away if they are not happy.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, when you're raised with that kind of domination, it can amount to brainwashing. It can really be very hard for them to realize that they have a choice, even if they do.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lack of education, from the ability to read, to getting to the next town over, to being able to drive a car would also make it very difficult to get out.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason that polygamy gets confused with the LDS church is because the church, at one time, approved of it. Joseph Smith started the practiced and Brigham Young embraced the practice. Polygamy was originally called “The New and Everlasting Covenant” (TNaEC). TNaEC is now understood to mean regular marriage in the LDS holy temple. TNaEC may originally included monogamous temple marriage and polygamous temple marriage, but I am under the impression that it was specifically polygamy—I could be wrong.
In the Doctrine and Covenants chapter 132 , it gives the official church doctrine of polygamy. Verses 7, 15-17 are a very good introduction that shows the importance of the priesthood and how the LDS faith views spiritual/temple covenants.
Verses 61-63 introduces the functional concept of polygamy.
In the latter 1800s, the US government started to jail men who where polygamous and threatened to take away church property. The fourth President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, received a revelation of what would happen to the church if they did not submit to the laws of the land, and he revoked temporal polygamy. His Official Declaration is also in the Doctrine and Covenants.
quote:Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
quote:The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
At that time, there was a segment of the Mormon Population who felt betrayed and that the church had lost their way by giving in to the secular laws. They continue to practice polygamy, use the Book of Mormon, use the Doctrine and Covenants, and call themselves Mormon. That group has also splintered several times. It is from them that people like Warren Jeffs comes from.
The relationship between the LDS church and it’s distant cousins in polygamy is icy at best. Anyone in the LDS faith who has study groups with polygamous will probably be excommunicated.
When news groups look at Mormonism, they often will attach fringe people from the Polygamous group as an example of Mormonism. Elizebeth Smart’s kidnapper embraced polygamy and was an individual fanatic who doesn’t even represent the core polygamous groups. The Lafferty brothers also embraced polygamy and murdered one of the brother’s wife and toddler. I am sure that there are some individuals that married their own daughter, but they are generally fanatics who started their own (or belong to) a splinter group of the polygamous group that is a splinter group of LDS Mormonism.
In my ward, when I was Mormon, one of the Sisters, who was a Daughter of Zion ( a social group of people with polygamous heritage –which usually means social status since most polygamous families had men who were in important church/government positions), bore her testimony about her grandfather. He had raised an Indian girl who was left on his doorstep. When she was of age (14 or 16), she had no place to go. Whites wouldn’t accept her and the Indian population wouldn’t accept her. Brigham Young commanded him to marry her so that she would be supported.
Her testimony (an expression of faith during worship members can do on the first Sunday of the month) revolved around how spiritual her grandfather was because he obeyed the prophet.
I don’t know if the story is true. The members were certainly VERY uncomfortable. This lady always was a little strange. The standard Mormon would be very uncomfortable with that testimony.
I hope this helps why some people confuse Mormonism with polygamy.
What is the Mormon perspective with regards to Polygamy? Like mph said, it is something that God has, at various times, commanded among his followers. Usually, it is something that God commands of a select few (including the early history of the LDS church), not the population at large. Personally, polygamy is something that I've always had trouble understanding (even though one of my ancestors was a polygamist). To me, when thinking of the early LDS church, polygamy makes sense within the context of that time. There were a large number of women without husbands (many died either from mob violence or during the migration west) and were without a means of support. So, polygamy (at least in modern times) would be a way of caring for members of society who may not otherwise have a means of support - it's not about seeing how many women a guy can have.
How the BBC interviewed a person claiming to be Mormon who had many wives? The news media always focuses on the extreme, in whatever form it takes. This is just another example of that.
How Mormons view those who claim to be Mormons who have many wives? I think they are sadly misguided and are deliberately going against governmental and religious rules. Anyone claiming to have many wives is not a part of the maintstream LDS church, but rather a part of a splinter group, sometimes with themselves as the only member.
posted
The thing that troubles me about this doctrine is this: if the practice wasn't abolished just to keep Mormons from getting murdered, but by revelation that it wasn't necessary anymore, then why can a man still be sealed to more than one woman? It makes it seem like very little was changed, except for the outward practice that made them 'other' enough to be hunted for sport.
Not that that isn't a good plan in and of itself, but it seems like if it's good enough for the next life it should be okay in this one, too.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There were a large number of women without husbands (many died either from mob violence or during the migration west) and were without a means of support. To me, this sets up polygamy (at least in modern times) as a way of caring for members of society who may not otherwise have a means of support - it's not about seeing how many women a guy can have.
Polygamy did not result from persecution, polygamy was one of the causes of persecution. I think you would be hard pressed to find more examples of people who entered polygamy out of desperation then out of holy duty.
A Mormon Mother would be a very good book read. It is an autobiography of Sister Tanner and what life was like as the church transcended from polygamy to non-polygamy. One of the points she makes is that many members felt it was the second or third wife that held the keys to the Celestial Kingdom.
When you read her book, it places D&C 132 in really good context.
Polygamy was not instituted to bring the saints west or to take care of helpless woman. Many women who entered polygamy were already married. It was a divine commandment that supported your ascension into Godhead.
EDIT: To reflect the link for a Mormon Mother is located at Deseret Books. I don't want anyone to suppose the book is anti-Mormon.
quote:if the practice wasn't abolished just to keep Mormons from getting murdered, but by revelation that it wasn't necessary anymore, then why can a man still be sealed to more than one woman?
If you re-read the Official Declaration in my long post, you realize that the revelation pertained to what would happen if the church didn't stop polygamy. It was about submitting to the government--hence the polygamous splinter groups who feel LDS Mormons have lost their way.
The revelation was to conform to the laws of the land, the Church still very much believes in the principal. That is why a man can be married to more then one woman in the temple--provided the first wife has passed away. Ironically, the first wife can no longer give or not give her consent.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, I didn't mean to say that polygamy was a direct result of social conditions, merely that it would have a been a good way of dealing with things as they were. I've also never heard the theory that the "new and everlasting covenant" originally referred to polygamy. Do you remember where you got this idea? It is interesting to me that this phrase (in the D&C) also refers to baptism, not just marriage in the temple.
One thing I think most people forget is that a very small percentage of LDS people practiced polygamy during the early history of the church (I wish I could find the exactly number, but I remember the percentage being in the single digits). Also, it was always done in response to revelation. It wasn't something done willy nilly by everyone.
Olivet - I know it doesn't make it any better. I know it bothers me too. As unsatisfactory as it is, I've decided it's something that I don't understand right now and since I don't have a pressing need to understand it right now, I leave it at that.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you remember where you got this idea? It is interesting to me that this phrase (in the D&C) also refers to baptism, not just marriage in the temple.
I can't. I have read a lot of books and have poor recall. I also tend to blend things together, so I am probably wrong on that.
As I was writing it, it occurred to me that TNaEC was referring to anything sealed by the priesthood. I will look into it more and see if I can find a source. If I can't, then I submit to it referring to any Priesthood Blessing sealed on earth and heaven.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard people from the polygamist gropus say that TNaEC only refers to plural marriage, but nobody else.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've heard people from the polygamist gropus say that TNaEC only refers to plural marriage, but nobody else.
I know for sure I have heard it from them. Since they are closer to the original church then the LDS church (fundamental), I trust their interpretation of 132 more then the official church statements. Because I left the church, my views are biased and I freely admit my bias.
The churches official definition of THaEC is found on their website .
quote: The fulness of the gospel is called the new and everlasting covenant. It includes the covenants made at baptism, during the sacrament, in the temple, and at any other time. The Lord calls it "everlasting" because it is ordained by an everlasting God and because the covenant will never be changed. He gave this same covenant to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and other prophets. In this sense it is not new. But the Lord calls it "new" because each time the gospel is restored after being taken from the earth, it is new to the people who receive it (see Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 37:26).
I will see if I can find an accepted LDS source that supports the polygamous view. I do believe that several church practices have changed over the years (like the endowment ceremony), and so I hold the belief that the interpretation of 132 and TNaEC would also change as the church distances itself from polygamy. Without a reference, I am just being snarky. I don’t want to be that, so I will look more closely and admit I am probably wrong. The burden of proof rests on my shoulders since I started the claim in this thread.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a note to add to the great answers already here, and really more of interest to those thinking about the eternal ramifications of polygamy: notice that some early polygamous marriages in the church were to women already married to other men, in other words, polyandry is just as valid eternally as polygyny. Also, my understanding is that women who were widowed and remarried while alive, even multiple times, are now sealed to all the husbands in the temple. I'm not sure whether that's a reflection of the eternal validity of polyandry or just a decision to do everything we need to do on our part here on earth and let those in the next life sort it out.
Note: this has NO bearing on marriages in mortal life, but only concerns the afterlife.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In societies worldwide today in which polygamy is legal and commonly practiced, for instance in some Arab and African societies, church members are nevertheless constrained to marry one spouse only, until death of one of the spouses. In other words, monogamy is the law of the church even in places where polygamy is socially and legally acceptable, which shows to me that monogamy during mortal life has a spiritual importance to the church that goes beyond simply complying with local laws or avoiding persecution.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the reasoning why I think The New and Everlasting Covenant is about Polygamy. If you go to BYU’s homepage, you can read the Journal of Discourses. Altho they are not official doctrine, what was taught was considered to be true doctrine by the members of that time.
quote:The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of Gods, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain a glory and may be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused them
D&C 132 says:
quote: 6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulnessthereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
In A Mormon Mother, she makes it clear that Polygamy was necessary to attain the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
So—and here is my train of thought—if you can only become a God and attain the highest degree of Glory if you are polygamist, and The New and Everlasting Covenant is institutes for the fullness of glory, then the fullness of Glory MUST include polygamy - because anything less then that is a type of damnation. Even if you attain the Celestial Kingdom, you can not attain the highest degree without Polygamy.
I am not saying this is official church doctrine. It certainly isn’t doctrine now. It is significant that the early saint population accepted this as doctrine. It is therefore reasonable to accept that TNaEC refers to polygamy in its fullness.
I will have try and dig deeper.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
This was on the CNN homepage today. It links the fall of polygamy with Utah joining the Union. Is this an accurate statement?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that there are LDS who believe that *all* marriages in the next life will be polygamist. My sis-in-law stated that she believes this just the other day.
Also, I think one of the reasons why some LDS break off from the mainstream and join splinter polygamous groups is that they look at the history of polygamy in the church, what was believed and what was said, and decide that it is necessary for exaltation, and therefore they ought to be living it regardless of what current church authority says.
While it is commonly said that only a small percentage of people lived polygamous marriages, it seems to me that that percentage gradually increased over time to the point where it was openly taught that it was something everyone needed to do. As for getting married willy nilly, I know for a fact that one of Porter's polygamous ancestors was away from his first wife for a period of time traveling and came home with a brand new wife. Surprise!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Utah probably could not have become a state while polygamy was widely practices and approved of, and it certainly could have been a factor in the decision to end polygamy.
But still I don't think that it's an accurate statement to say that the Chruch changed policy "as a condition of statehood".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just curious. Normally I wouldn't have asked, but seeing as how this discussion was actively occurring here, the CNN story provided the catalyst.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is all really interesting. I'm really grateful for the openness of the responces here and I'm also greatful and impressed that this thread has remained so measured.
quote: As for getting married willy nilly, I know for a fact that one of Porter's polygamous ancestors was away from his first wife for a period of time traveling and came home with a brand new wife. Surprise!
quote: Just a note to add to the great answers already here, and really more of interest to those thinking about the eternal ramifications of polygamy: notice that some early polygamous marriages in the church were to women already married to other men, in other words, polyandry is just as valid eternally as polygyny. Also, my understanding is that women who were widowed and remarried while alive, even multiple times, are now sealed to all the husbands in the temple. I'm not sure whether that's a reflection of the eternal validity of polyandry or just a decision to do everything we need to do on our part here on earth and let those in the next life sort it out.
That would also seem to answer my question, but since no other LDS have said anything about this, I wonder if they either didn't read it or are avoiding contradicting Tatiana publicly.
I am really curious about this.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, my understanding is that women who were widowed and remarried while alive, even multiple times, are now sealed to all the husbands in the temple.
No, this is not correct.
Sometimes widows will get sealed again, and nothing is mentioned of the previous sealing. It looks like they are being sealed to several husbands. The truth is that they are breaking the seal to the first husband, but generally don't talk about it, since everyone would have an opinion. I agree with this for the privacy concerns, but the anecdotes occasionally lead to confusion about what is possible.
Added: Wait, I'm not sure what she's saying. I know for certain that a living woman cannot be married to more than one husband, but I don't know for certain about sealings for the dead. I suspect it is the same, but the certain knowledge is only for the first scenario.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe she is saying that there were women in early LDS history that were married and sealed to one man though they were already legally married to another. Like Dinah Kirkham (fictional example) in Saints. I don't know if that was a part of OSC's novel that was supposed to be historically accurate, or if it was part of the "fiction" half of "historical fiction." Perhaps Tatiana has some historical sources she could point us to?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is my understanding that that happened as well. There is no doctrine, however, on polyandry, and I would suspect that most LDS do not think it is doctrinally supportable.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, my understanding is that women who were widowed and remarried while alive, even multiple times, are now sealed to all the husbands in the temple. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is not correct.
Actually, Kat, it is correct.
I knew two young widows who were sealed to two men at the same time. One joined the church after her first husband had died and was married (sealed)to hubby #2 and then he stood in and was proxy for hubby #1. There was no indication that the sealing was being "undone", in fact she was sealed to her second husband first.
I think this is a topic that we have very little knowledge on, and most of the speculation I read is in direct contradiction to cases that I know of.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it had been, but it turns out that the first sealing had been broken.
I'm going to have to go with "we are not sure." How do we find out for sure? Maybe I'll hunt up the temple president this week.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pretty sure it is correct as well. I've always understood it to mean that a woman can choose which husband she wants to be with eternally--no burnt bridges. Not that she may be married to more than one eternally.
Edit: Kat, you may find the answer to this question a hard one to find. It seems that quite often individual cases are treated differently. I tried asking many different members of my family earlier this year, and they all had anecdotal examples seeming to support differing positions.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why did my mother's friend and my friend's aunt have to break their first sealings in order to be sealed to the second husband? They did have to - it was a very traumatic decision for my mother's friend.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had one sealer tell me unequivocally that a living woman cannot be sealed to more than one husband.
But about the dead-- I've heard that's more along the lines of "seal them all and it will be worked out" in practice.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(My mother-in-law has been sealed twice. I have never had the courage-- or lack of tact-- to ask her, but my understanding is that the seal to her first husband had to be broken-- although the children are still sealed to both their natural parents. That may be why my sister-in-law, who was old enough to understand at the time, had a real problem with her mother's remarriage even though she loves her step-dad. And then, my husband's half-brother, from the second marriage, is sealed to both his natural parents. So it may be kind of an "extended family" situation going on in the eternities. )
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if I get this correctly, a man may be eternally sealed to more than woman, but a woman cannot be eternally sealed to more than one man. These other sealings are just to allow the woman to keep her eternal options open?
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: So, if I get this correctly, a man may be eternally sealed to more than woman, but a woman cannot be eternally sealed to more than one man. These other sealings are just to allow the woman to keep her eternal options open?
I think that's the general idea, but we really don't know for sure.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is exactly what I asked my family about. And I got some very different answers. This leads me to believe there is a certain amount of autonomy amongst Temple Presidents who govern the matter as they see fit. It may be that they seek personal revelation for individual circumstances. Some say previous sealings must be broken, but others don't. That's what it seemed like from the information I was getting.
This is just one of those things that nobody talks about. No one wants to ask a widowed or divorced woman if her previous sealing was broken. I mean, how do you do that tactfully? It's like asking someone why they aren't married or when they are gonna have kids. And there is nothing specific about it in any scripture teachings or conference talks that I am aware of.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
