It has been documented that of the 33 verifiable marriage Joseph Smith entered, 1/3 of them were with women who were currently married when they married Joseph Smith. Is there a logical explanation for these dual marriages (polygamy and polyandry) or was it simply a commandment from God?
Polyandry
One pretty basic logical explanation would be that women felt better about sleeping with a man they were married to…
Another explanation would be the hope that some big payoff was in the works, and what better way of getting a piece of the goodness than by being married to the prophet … kind of a win-win situation – my husband is good to me and I’m happy OR I’m married to the prophet and have a firm hold on his coat-tails.
Here is a great article on polyandry: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf
That article puts a nice spin on a pretty unpleasant period of Mormon history, but I think Todd Compton did a fairly good job of establishing that in many cases there was a sexual component to these marriages – destroying the whole ‘for eternity only’ angle.
I don’t care if a new husband was a prophet there is no way I would want to have to be convincing TWO husbands to aim their clothes INTO the hamper instead of on top of the lid, beside the hamper, around the hamper behind the hamper… or that wet towels do NOT belong IN the hamper they belong ON the towel bar till dry, not ON the floor till dry, not ON the bed which will never dry…. or try and convince more then one husband at a time that dirty dishes go INTO the dishwasher not on the counter not in the sink not on the end table nor the coffee table.
Nope I really would need a personal visit from my Father in Heaven to convince me to take on more then one husband at a time. There isn’t enough evidence to prove to me on any given day that Emma did not have the same problems with Joseph that every other wife had with their husband.
I’ve been reading Tom Compton’s book recently and while I’m still not finished with it, I’ve come to this conclusion about polyandry: confusion. The principles of Sealing for Eternity and of polygamy were ill understood. There is a definite trend when you look at the chronology. For the most part, the polyandrous marriages were in the beginning of the polygamist period… then there’s a gap of about five months when he doesn’t marry anyone else… nearly all (I can only remember one) of the marriages after that point were to single sisters. So I conclude that the prophet was making mistakes and God was correcting him– in His own time, as usual. :)
That makes more sense (what harpingheather said).
Like Mum said, one husband is enough!!!
I’m sorry, but I ‘m still laughing at the “there’s a gap of about five months when he doesn’t marry anyone else” line.
Wow. Way to go Joe. You went a *whole* five months without marrying anyone. /end sarcasm
Really, it would be laughable in any other situation, with any other individual.
I think Mary and Sally have expressed the opinion of the vast majority of women – polygamy *feels* inherently wrong.
personally the whole polgamy thing does seem wrong to me, and is a serious cause for concern among many members. the problem being that it isn’t just an unfortunate part of our past, but it is an unfortunate part of our future.
as for the polyandry, most members aren’t even aware of it happening. i can’t for the life of me understand why it would be right, and i don’t believe it was right at all.
and amen to what sally said! one husband is plenty. and i would venture to say that most men wouldn’t want to have to please more than one woman either!
Going just off my feelings, homosexual marriages seem to be alright, while polygamy seems to be abhorrent. Is this because of our current culture? What if I had friends that participated in successful polygamous marriages?
I lean towards the opinion I read somewhere that Joseph had a strong desire to be connected to people. The polyandrous relationships do nothing towards increasing childbirths, but rather bind more people to him. Whether it be by marrying a Relief Society leader, or the sister, daughter, or wife of another church leader.
Other early mormon teachings seem to support this view. Where they encourage you to be buried close to your family so you can wake up in the next life together.
Polygamy feels inherently wrong, especially if you are a single woman. I don’t know any single women who want to be a man’s 2nd,3rd,4th, etc choice. No one wants to feel like a ‘possession’ to be given away, or like a ‘broodmare’ whose only job is to bear children. What kind of life would that be for eternity?
There are women who think polygamy would be okay for eternity, but they are usually the 1st wife who is secure in her position :-)
Neither polyandry nor polygamy make any sense in the long-term.
You people are ignoring the fact that there were thousands of women to whom polygamy did not feel wrong and who actively participated in it. Don’t let your own distate color those facts. Polygamy does not feel any more “inherently wrong” to me than does monogamy.
It really rubs me raw the way all these “progressive, enlightened” types bemoan polygamy as something “unfortunate” and “evil” yet jump on their high horse the minute someone implies that it may not be either spiritually or socially sound for men to marry other men.
>>I’m sorry, but I ‘m still laughing at the “there’s a gap of about five months when he doesn’t marry anyone else†line.
Wow. Way to go Joe. You went a *whole* five months without marrying anyone. /end sarcasm
Sarcasm is rude, disrespectful and totally uncalled for here. I was discussing a trend and when someone marries as often as Joseph Smith did, five months and then later eight months of TOTAL CESSATION is significant.
In the end, you either believe polygamy was divinely instituted or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s fine, that’s your business but you have no more business mocking those who do believe than the rest of the world does mocking you for your beliefs.
Well, the most logical explanation that I’ve heard is that if you are secretly marrying single women, any pregnancy resulting will be highly suspicious.
The best way to avoid being found out is by marrying women who have husbands. Then, any pregnancies that result will not be suspicious.
This makes a lot of sense to me, though obviously, it is impossible to know for certain.
Polygamy, as practised by Smith, Young et al is inherently wrong. It denigrates women and its’ sole purpose is the oppression of the wives. Given the opportunity (and the spiritual license) to choose a non-polygamous lifestyle, most polygamous women would not participate in a polygamous relationship. The disadvantaged, naive and uneducated women of polygamy are being taken advantage of – plain and simple.
As for men marrying men (women marrying women) – I’m all for it.
” I was discussing a trend and when someone marries as often as Joseph Smith did, five months and then later eight months of TOTAL CESSATION is significant.”
When someone marries as often as Smith did he has significant mental problems … but that’s just my take on it.
You might want to read about why he stopped marrying for those five months. The heat was on, and he was trying to keep a low profile. Besides, I think the ladies he’d already married were servicing his needs well enough.
If polygamy is divinely instituted, what a cruel and unusual Heavenly Father we have.
I believe that the marriage and subjugation of multiple (or single) women is abhorrent and should not be tolerated. I will no sooner cease my opposition to, and mocking of, polygamy in its’ Youngian form than I would cease my opposition to, and mocking of murderers or child molesters.
What a fabulous world we live in. I’m free to do what I want. Now *that* seems divinely inspired.
Harpingheather, I am going to bemoan all I want about polygamy because I don’t want to practice it. I want nothing to do with sharing my husband with other women. That’s nice that there were women willing to do so, but I am not one of them.
It is a sore spot with many members in the church, and perhaps you would prefer that those who don’t belive in polygamy leave the church all together? It’s not as cut and dried as you would like to make it.
I don’t mean to be rude, but the following paragraph is a prime example of stereotyping and generalizing of people you know nothing about simply because their opinions may not agree with yours:
**It really rubs me raw the way all these “progressive, enlightened†types bemoan polygamy as something “unfortunate†and “evil†yet jump on their high horse the minute someone implies that it may not be either spiritually or socially sound for men to marry other men.**
This is not meant to be a personal attack, so let me generalize as well. It really annoys me that people are so quick to point fingers and call other people ‘homophobes’ or similar derogatory terms that fit the current acceptable/politically correct social agenda. Give me a break!
So I uppose polygamy as it is practised today in other cultures is wrong too? Not saying one way or another. I have some discomfort with polygamy, but I trust that one day I will understand it better. In the meantime I don’t worry about it. Or about the early saints practising it.
Polygamy isn’t something new, or something they invented. It has been around for ages, and practised in many different ways. Just because we live in a world where it is abhorred doesn’t mean it didn’t have some validity elsehwere and in different times. Also, it’s interesting how polygamy gets folks dander up, but the fact that men in that same era were regularly visiting prostitutes and cheating on their wives didn’t get the same condemnation. I suppose it is worse to hide it from her. I see cheating more disrespectful than polygamy (and again, I am not personally comfortable with the whole polygamy aspect myself, but I don’t claim to know the thoughts and intents of all indidivuals.)
Those of you who seem to feel polygamy is evil:
Would you be on the side of those who, seeing that Mormon women kept voting to maintain a practice that they believed in, then removed from them their right to vote “for their own good?”
Precisely how do taking away someone’s right to vote and polygamy have anything to do with each other?
Polygamy is going to be mocked from here to . . ..
As a descendant of a polygamous great, great grandfather I have a bone to pick with those who feel so self-righteous in mocking it.
It was an ancient practise, and was commanded to be practised in our day. Unfortunately some mistakes were made as the early saints were going through the learning process, including Joseph.
However, and this is my bone: those who mock polygamy favour, in the main, homosexual marriages. In turn they are now being asked to accept polyamory as a legitimate form of marriage.
Now let’s see – is that 2 men and 1 woman, or 4 men and 3 women,. . . gosh I just can’t get it straight. And the kids . . . what a heaven on earth for them. Who is what? Are you my mom or is she? Hey which one is dad?
And when divorce comes up – wow, what a terrific experience that would be.
At least under polygamy there was a measure of order and understanding.
Eugene England wrote an interesting essay on polygamy. I wrote a recap of it here (and the references are there too). I agree that we should be respectful of those who practiced polygamy and admire their faith. I think that we just don’t know about polygamy. I hope that England is right and there is none in heaven.
harpingheather said:
“You people are ignoring the fact that there were thousands of women to whom polygamy did not feel wrong and who actively participated in it.”
WERE there thousands? I’d like to see numbers to back this up. I’m not attacking, I’m just genuinely shocked that this might be the case.
Mary Siever said:
“So I suppose polygamy as it is practised today in other cultures is wrong too?”
I think that generally this is true. I think in most societies where it is practiced today, women are generally treated very badly, have very few rights, and have no power at all.
Sue, I am not disputing that, but we don’t know all the scenarios. As well, it isn’t necessarily the polygamy that is wrong, it is the abuse that is wrong. Polygamy in and of itself isn’t necessarily bad if practised correctly. In many monogamous marriages there is extreme abuse as well. That doesn’t make monogamy bad.
Do you know of any cultures that practice polygamy currently that do not abuse women?
That’s a loaded question, Sue. That’s like asking if you know of any cultures that practice monogamy that do not abuse women. In monogamous cultures you will find husbands who abuse and husbands who do not. In polygamous cultures, you will find husbands who abuse and husbands who do not.
I am doubtful that the type of marriage a man is in determines whether he will be an abuser or not.
I use to think that poligamy as it was practiced in the early days of the church was a good thing. I use to think that it was too bad that it is no longer practiced today. I still wonder if the laws of the land are changed… will it come back…. After all, The manifesto does not say that we no longer believe in it…. only that we would not practice it since the laws of the land prohibit it. Does that mean, therefore, if the laws of the land change, that we are bound to practice it again?
As a new convert at age 16 I was told that, other than being a commandment of God, many men died coming across the plains to Utah and so many women and children were left husbandless and fatherless. Polygamy resolved the problem in a “Christian” sort of way. Also the first wife was to be in accord with any future wives, and the husband had to be wealthy enough and spiritually in tune enough to practice it.
THIS I thought was very good and sounded just fine. But then when I read a book about Wilford Woodruff (and this was written by a BYU church historian…not an anti LDS book) that explained how he took on two 17 year old girls for his wives when he was in his late 40’s and then …. divorced them a few months later for flirting with young men their own age…..and had the young men involved whipped….THEN… marrying a young girl about 15 when he was almost 50… but waiting until she was 19 to have children with her (He would have been over 50 by then)…. I changed my mind about poligamy.
I use to think that Poligamy would solve the “stay at home economic problems” present day marriage. One or two wives go out to work while one stays at home to take care of the children. All problems solved! If there is a disagreement with one wife… then hubby spends some time with the another until wife upset and husband can resolve the problem in a quiet less agressive fashion.
That all changed when I read of the reality of plural marriages being performed in Colorado City, Arizona and Bountiful, British Columbia, where it seems that some wives are almost like prisoners.
Was Poligamy EVER really what the church tries to emulate it to be. The message that I heard about it seems to be totally different from what apears to be the reality of it.
Add to that, the way the church is fighting another kind of “different” marriage… gay marriage…. and I find them to be more than just a little hipocritical!
Some place I read or heard that single people could go to the celestial kingdom as “ministering angels”…. was THAT a hopeful thing referring to GAYS?
What about the thousands of children who have no parents or whose parents abandon them… would not childless kind and good believing gays and lesbians help to resolve that situation. (and do not tell me that gay people can not raise children…. my wife died when my children were 5 and 3 and I raised them as a gay man …. both are successful and been to the temple..one is a relief society president and supports her husband in the stake presidancy).
Anyway… I do NOT see poligamy as being bad…. if it were being used and practiced properly. However, I do not think that many who practice it now in the FLDS Church and those who practiced it 100 years ago are or were justified to take on wives young enough to be their daughters “in the name of the Lord or to inprison their wives, which unfortunately seems to be more the reality of poligamy!”
P.S. Please note that I got an A in University for creative spelling! Bravo Dean!
(off topic message) Dean, Sorry for not replying to your last comment on the gay sin thread. I started composing my thoughts to you (I am a very slow writer), but ended up placing them into my comments on the thread being discussed over at 9Moons:
http://ninemoons.typepad.com/home/2006/01/the_homosexuals.html
Hi there – just enjoying some of the conversation, and I thought I might weigh in. So here we go:
I happened to watch the Fifth Estate last night on the Bountiful, BC branch of the FLDS. To me, a non-member, the whole experience of the Church visa-vis poligamy, polyandry, plural marriages, and whatever other permutations might have existed (or continue to exist through the FLDS’ interprtation of the scripture) presents an amazing paradox. Most of the Mormons I know are the ideal hyper-monogamists. To me the process appears: they meet, they kiss, they date for a month or two, they get married, and if all goes as planned, spend the rest of eternity together. I don’t see how a third, forth, or fifth (let alone a 17th) can be thrown into the mix. It just doesn’t adapt to my understanding of the types of relationships I see being formed around the Church.
From what I am reading here, it seems that many members also have a hard time reconciling the history to the theory and/or to the faith.
I am not by any means anti-LDS and by-and-large I have very postive feelings towards the Church. I am, however, scepticle of the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage considering the ambiguities surrounding it on this particular discussion. This is not to say that SSM is good and that poligamy is bad, and that the Church has got it all wrong and that they are no authority on the subject whatsoever. I’m just saying that both situations are out of the norm in the Christian tradition. Besides, even the controversial ex-Bishop Winston Blackmore (of Bountiful notoriety) characterises himself and his family as “simple strange folk.” I might be compelled to even substitue ‘strange’ with ‘queer’, but that’s just me.
Finally, I would have to say that I doubt very many Mormons would revert to the ancient practice in the event that the Canadian gov’t legislates poligamy as a protected religious practice. As I said before, I don’t think it is congruent with what the Church is about today, or with what its members are LIKE today.
Still an interesting topic of discussion though, for members and non-members alike, so long as it is based on respect and a sensitvity to differences in culture over space and time (:
If one of the objectives of Smith’s experiment was “let no fertile womb go to waste”, then bringing another man into a marriage (polyandry) makes sense if the first hubby wasn’t getting the job done, was away on a mission, etc. Certainly makes as much sense as polygamy.
I think #10 has some truth but is overly simplistic. Look around today and you’ll see plenty of attractive women who choose the role of mistress to a successful man over marriage to a less successful man. I think the major emotional burden in polygamy fell on the first wife. If the guy was successful, the B-wives would just line up.
Polygamy in and of itself isn’t necessarily bad if practised correctly.
If you take the number of males and females into account, I think it is bad. It throws the balance off. With men marrying multiple women, there will not be enough women to go around for all men. An example is the “Lost Boys” in Colorado City–young men and boys that have been thrown out of the society, as to not be in competition for the women.
“That’s a loaded question, Sue. That’s like asking if you know of any cultures that practice monogamy that do not abuse women”
True, I stated it very simplistically because I was in a hurry. My question really should have been – in cultures/societies where polygamy is practiced today, are women generally treated well? Do they have the same rights as men? Are they allowed to vote? Are they allowed to own property? And most importantly are they allowed to choose who they marry?
Wendy,
This is why I said correctly. I think it has rarely been practised correctly, whether in modern times, early Church times or ancient times. Putting it into the hands of humans distorts it.
That said, I am not sharing my husband. He is only mine. :)
As well, I have to add I don’t understand it enough to have a strong opinion on it. Perhaps in the next life.
Rick: I’ve asked you before to offer some support for your assertion that polygamy is INHERENTLY evil. You still haven’t done so.
Why not just ask me to prove that blue is blue?
Polygamy (as practised by Smith, Young et al) is a degenerate practice.
Here’s a sure-fire way to figure it out.
Marry more than one woman.
Live like that for a year.
At the end of the year, go to a daycare and smack some innocent child.
Now that feeling you get when you hit the kid … compare that with how you felt living in a polygamous relationship.
Don’t forget to return and report on how that works out for you.
:P
Rick,
That seems kind of bigoted. You might as well be arguing that current LDS strict sexual mores which, IMHO are a backlash against polygamy, are evil. Just be glad we don’t practice it anymore rather than condemn those who did. After all, we weren’t there.
So…it’s true because you say so. That’s all you have to offer.
By the way, what does striking children have to do with the issue?
What kind of twisted-up logic is that?
Why should I be glad we don’t practise it, if it’s not worth condeming?
The whole ‘you weren’t there’ argument falls flat.
I wasn’t present during the holocaust…I rest assured that it was evil.
ltbugaf, I think that the abuse suffered by the women of polygamy is akin to child abuse.
And apparently, because you think so, it must be so, right?
Well, *I* think so … and I’m right – so I guess we’re in agreement.
Rick, I like to indulge in hyperbole too, but bringing in the holocaust is more than over the top.
Are you saying that a gal today who chooses to be a mistress to a successful guy is abused? Is a trophy wife abused? I might judge these as relationships I wouldn’t want for my daughters, but as far as I can see, they are freely entered into and there is no coercion or abuse involved. We might argue the first wife in each case is abused, but we can’t say for sure. I worked w/ a 30-something married guy once who’s wife had a bisexual girl friend join the relationship and eventually move in with them. He thought this was great until after a few years, when the wife wanted to return to a one-on-one sexual relationship w/ him, but also encouraged him to continue a live-in relationship with her friend. He was less than comfortable with the situation, but the three of them are still together. Again, a very odd situation, but not abusive.
IMHO, you’re comments seem somewhat bigoted.
Steve, you might have noticed that I try to stick to the phrase ‘Polygamy as practised by Smith, Young et al’ specifically to exclude modern relationships which are similar in form, but vastly different from the polygamy of early mormons.
I agree that there are big differences between the, as I have dubbed it, ‘inherently evil’ polygamous relationships and the ‘hangup-free’ relationships regarding the new sexuality.
…and ‘bigot’ is such a vague word. Why not say what you are really feeling?
Rick,
For background, in no way am I saying JS or BY were inspired on this or not. By bigoted, I mean your remarks seem judgmental, prejudiced or intolerant of an alternative lifestyle that no one is asking us to mimic today. BTW, I think I’m on reasonable ground arguing that current LDS strict sexual mores are a backlash against polygamy. If you are judging 19th century frontier sexual mores and early Mormon polygamy by current LDS standards of sexual conduct, that seems grossly unfair.
Yeah, I must be a bigot.
I am intolerant of the alternative lifestyle that Young, Smith and a handful of modern men have lived their lives.
The subjugation and abuse suffered by the women of polygamy will not allow me to be anything less than judgmental in regard to polygamous relationships of this type.
I stand by my opinion not based on any benchmark of LDS ethics. I think that it is wrong because it is abusive and denies these women and children their basic human rights.
The spiritual blackmail practised by early saints is intolerable in a civilised and enlightened society.
Rick,
I think some people here are concluding that your statements are bigoted because you don’t offer any support for your position except to keep reasserting and repeating it.
“I’m right, I’m right, I’m right” just doesn’t give us much to go on.
Well, read Todd Compton’n book and maybe you can be right too.
;)
Agent Bucky:
How would you feel about polygamous homosexual marriages?
By the way, I think people are a little confused on the definition of “polygamy.” Polygamy means marriage to more than one spouse. It applies universally, both to polyandry (having more than one husband) and to polygyny (having more than one wife).
I still find it very interesting that those who are advocating state sanctioning of gay marriage are the same ones (both gay and straight) that years ago said that marriage was just a piece of paper and wasn’t important.
Question: What changed?
Answer: Follow the money.
I think it’s about health care benefits mainly. Billions of health care dollars are at stake.
Many of the arguments for gay marriage revolve around inheritance rights, and the right of one partner to made decisions in case the other is incapacitated, as in when gay partners complain about being shut out by family.
Inheritance and hospital access or decision-making can be resolved quite easily with 1) a will, and 2) a power of attorney.
In my view, the other two major issues are access to spousal health care benefits through an employer, and gaining society’s approval for homosexuality.
I used to hear from my gay friends that ‘marriage was for breeders’, but I think that at that time that was really just a bit of sour grapes on their parts.
The people who I talk to now are all about the legitimacy that marriage affords the relationship … and all the associated regulatory benefits that go along with it.