Brigham Young stated the following in a discourse on 31 August 1873:
Now, where a man in this Church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever.
(Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.166)
Is this an actual teaching of the church, that monogamous men will have their wives taken from them because they would not marry others?
A reading of this passage that makes sense to me is that, if a man was called to marry another wife by church leaders and refuses, his wife will be taken away from him in the afterlife. In that case, it’s a question of failing to follow a commandment from God’s annointed. Or it could just be one more thing that Brigham believed and taught without it being actual doctrine.
It’s only logical, Kim. Don’t follow commandments = don’t receive Eternal Life. Dont receive Eternal Life = don’t have a wife in the Celestial Kingdom.
So if the wife qualifies to be in the Celestial Kingdom, and her husband can’t be there, she isn’t deprived the blessing of being sealed. She ends up sealed to someone else.
The thing is, nothing in what Brigham Young said had anything to do with whether polygamy was a commandment or not. It simply discussed the idea that one could not enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom without having more than one wife.
I think President Young’s first sentence in the above quotation contains an implication that the man in question is refusing to follow the commandment to take another wife.
On the topic of taking a wife away, D&C 132:39, speaking of King David, says, “…he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.” Here it wasn’t because David was refusing the commandment to take another wife, but because he wasn’t keeping other commandments.
In fact, Kim, without seeing the whole speech, it looks to me like President Young’s whole thesis (in this section) is that the commandment to take additional wives had to be obeyed or result in a fall from exaltation (accompanied by the loss of a wife).
BY said a lot of things that we can today dismiss as nonsense. It’s pretty clear from the statement he viewed women as property to be dispensed around in some meritorious fashion. It appears BY was a pig. Is there more to the discourse to say otherwise?
Brigham Young may have had some strong opinions on some issues, but he certainly wasn’t a pig and he wasn’t totally off the wall on all things. There is a WHOLE lot to be admired about what he said and did and I think he was sensible on many issues. was he perfect? of course not. But I don’t believe at all he felt women were property. You only have to look at some of his daughter and what they contributed to society and their lives to know he raised his own daughters to be strong, independent and intelligent women. He also advocated education for women, was the first one to send women out to be trained as doctors and felt that women were able to accomplish much of worth.
“You only have to look at some of his daughter and what they contibuted to society and their lives to know he raised his own daughters to be strong, independent and intelligent women.”
Given that he had fifty-six children, I am doubtful he had a lot of influence in how all his daughters were raised.
Oh I don’t think he had little influence. He was their father after all. And from what I understand he was very interested in his childrens’ upbringing.
Do you think a prophet who is busy building four temples, settling an area that would cover several states and organise treks from the eastern United States has the ability to devote time to the upbringing of 56 children?
Of course he would make time. His first calling is that of father.
Kim, I think your assessment of President Young’s parenting skills is pure speculation, based only on the fact that he had many children and many accomplishments. It would be wiser for you to look into the actual lives of his children and their accounts of their father before you render judgment.
Steve, it appears you support President Young, or any other Prophet, right up to the point where you have any personal disagreement with anything he says, at which point you “write him off” and yet continue to claim a belief in the Church. That confuses me.
Well I have a husband and I want two more. No one ever talks about whether I have the right to more than one husband…sheesh.
K.
Susan Evans McCloud tells a story about Brigham Young’s favorite wife wanting to adjust the garments of her daughters so they could wear more modern dresses.
He said, “no” and she did it anyway and he kvetched about not being obeyed even in his own family.
Not as serious as polygamy.
Kim, I don’t know the answer to your question, but I think God is way more merciful than we believe. He knows the hearts and motives involved and it’s all good in the end.
“I think your assessment of President Young’s parenting skills is pure speculation”
Absolutely. I did not say otherwise.
“It would be wiser for you to look into the actual lives of his children and their accounts of their father before you render judgment.”
Do you know where I can find the accounts of all 56 of them?
Kris, you were born too late. Had you been around in the Nauvoo period, that would have been possible.
“Do you know where I can find the accounts of all 56 of them?”
Nope. Apparently Mary and annegb know how to find at least some such material, however.
I think it’s sad Brigham Young had a favourite wife. How must his other wive’s have felt? :(
???? Now that polygamy is no longer a commandment but it was at that time, what happens to the men that did NOT follow that commandment at that time? Will they really have their wives taken away?
Mary I agree with you about how the wives must have felt being second best all the time. I would not want to have been in their shoes.
For the record, I don’t write off some apostles as false prophets lightly. BY’s flaws aside, he did save the church, and no one can take that legacy from him. Nor do I think voluntary polygamy/polyandry is necessarily evil, but what BY conveys above is evil. What if the woman didn’t want to leave her polygamy rejecting hubby? What if he was rejecting extra wives because she didn’t want to share him? Doesn’t she have any say in the matter? BY’s statement makes women seem as property to be dispensed in the heavens to the most righteous males. That’s why I asked if there was more to the discourse? I’m having trouble believing BY actually meant what he said. And I didn’t say he was a pig, I said it appears BY was a pig (based on the statement above).
Now it’s clear to me that BY allowed his personal bigotry and toleration of slavery to deleteriously impact church policy regarding the priesthood ban, so who knows?
I also want a housekeeper and a cook and a butler…is there anything Brigham Young siad about that?
K.
Yes, Kris. Brigham Young actually said, ” What do the sisters want so many hired women for? ‘O, I want a seamstress, or I want somebody or other to clean the house and the carpets and to wait upon me, to bring the water to wash me, and to wash my neck or my feet; and I have so much cloth to make up, and I want help to make it up.” If there are women, who want to do good, let them do their own work and save their sixpences and dollars for the building of temples, tabernacles, meeting-houses, school houses, educating the youth, preaching the gospel, and gathering the poor”. -JD, Volume 11, p. 351
Two words, Kris:
Sister Wife
;)
Sally said, “Now that polygamy is no longer a commandment but it was at that time, what happens to the men that did NOT follow that commandment at that time?”
Sally, just fill in another commandment and see what result you get: “Now that abstaining from pork is no longer a commandment, but it was at that time, what happens to the men that did NOT follow that commandment at the time?” “Now that sacrificing animals by burning them on altars is no longer a commandment, but it was at that time, what happens…?”
Answer: The same thing that happens to every man who defies God, refuses to obey his commands, and doesn’t repent. He misses out on Eternal Life. And having missed out on Eternal Life, he misses out on having an eternal spouse.
Mary, I imagine some of President Young’s wives were perfectly content with the fact that one wife was held above the others. Others of his wives were less content. Some divorced him. The cases are as individual and varied as the personalities of women. I speculate that their feelings were somewhat like those of Abraham’s “lesser” wives, or like the feelings of Leah after her husband married Rachel.
Steve, I didn’t say you were taking your open condemnation of apostles, past and current, lightly. I said I was puzzled that while carrying on with it, you still profess a belief in the truthfulness of a Church that was and is led by sadly misguided bigots and pigs who just aren’t as smart and enlightened as you are. Since your morality and knowledge are superior to theirs, I would think you would want to found your own church rather than follow them.
ltbugaf
I know, and it makes me sad because EVERY woman deserves to be treated like a queen.
Itbugaf,
I suspect BY was quite a bit smarter than I am. I also believe he was a prophet, but clearly a bigot towards some races. I’m having trouble believing he viewed women as property to be dispensed around, but that seems to be what he said. If true, he was a pig too.
Regarding how much influence Brigham Young had in the raising of his children, I came across a quote in Martha Sonntag Bradley’s Pedestals & Podiums. She quotes historian Anne Firor Scott:
That’s fine, Kim, although it doesn’t look like the kind of material you were looking for. This is a historian, quoting another historian, not a daughter of Brigham Young describing her experience. Neither Bradley nor Scott was a child of President Young.
Steve, would it be fair to say President Young was describing women as a blessing, rather than merely as a commodity? God gives blessings and he takes them away. Christ used the parable of the talents to describe the way God gives and revokes blessings.
…or rather, describing the privilege of a woman’s eternal companionship as a blessing?
Kim, following up on #29: Was this quote even about Brigham Young’s families? Or was it just about some subset of plural wives in general? Does anything in the book indicate that even one of Brigham Young’s wives was expected to earn her own keep and take full responsibility for her own children?
It was about plural wives in general.
Then so far, we have Historian B telling us, “Historian A made this generalization about plural wives.” But we have nothing to tell us whether the generalization is supported by facts, and we have nothing to tell us anything at all about Brigham Youing’s families.
Do you think Scott could be just making stuff up? Seems like an odd thing for an historian to do.
Rick…Hehe..sister wife..I just saw a program on that last night. YIKES.
Kim…I never said I wanted to PAY someone to be my cook etc…and certianly not a woman! I think men are more better suited to be cooks, housecleaners etc. Hehe.
K.
Kim, as I’m sure you know, it’s not the least bit unusual for historians to make stuff up. But I’m not accusing Scott of making things up. I’m just saying that the material you’ve presented here doesn’t give us anything to go on but one person’s generalization. The generalization may or may not be warranted by the facts that Scott studied. And we still have nothing at all about the family of Brigham Young.
In addition, Scott’s statement is rather vague: What does “often” mean? When Scott says “plural wives,” which plusral wives is she talking about? How many? I’m sure the statement has some basis in fact, but is the basis sufficient for applying this generalization to ALL plural wives?
By the way, Kim, I’m certainly not demanding that you come up with more material to present here. It really doesn’t matter. I just suggested, earlier, that you might find it profitable to read first-hand accounts by the children of Brigham Young (if you can find them) when assessing his child-rearing abilities.
Itbugaf,
As I asked, what if the woman wanted to stay with her polygamy rejecting hubby? If her will is inconsequential in the matter then, BY is depicting her as a slave/property/blessing(what ever word you want to use) to be dispensed around. I somehow don’t think that’s what he meant, but that’s essentially what he said. And the guy was a bigot, so maybe he harbored that attitude towards women too.
“What if the woman wanted to stay with her polygamy-rejecting husband?”
Let me pose it in a different light: What if the woman prefers to follow an unrighteous man–a man who rejects the commandment and prefers to follow himself rather than follow God’s Prophet–to an honest man? Or in other words, what if she prefers not to have the companionship of a spouse who can have Eternal Life, but instead chooses the companionship of a spouse who can’t? My answer: If she chooses the companionship of the unrighteous over the companionship of the righteous, then she is choosing the temporary companionship of earth life over the eternal companionship of Eternal Life. And, quite fairly, she will get what she chooses.
I also think you’re reading too much into the phrase “given to another.” This doesn’t have to mean that the woman is treated as a commodity to be dispensed. This doesn’t mean that the woman has no choice about whom she will be sealed to.
Oops…I meant to write “prefers an unrighteous man…to a RIGHTEOUS man…” (not “honest”)
There seems to be some interest in hearing about polygamy only as it relates to Brigham Young’s family.
My great-great-great-great grandmother was a plural wife to Brigham Young’s brother and from the journal entries that I have read in my own family history, it is very clear that the women in plural marrages were responsible for supporting themselves.
It is also clear that polygomy was not used to support helpless widows that could not fend for themselves, since they did have to “earn their own keep and take full responsibility for their own children” anyway.
The Beehive House and the Lion House housed many of the wives of Brigham Young. He kept a store in the Beehive House that dispensed goods for the use of the wives and children. This evidence, at least, seems to contradict the notion that Brigham Young’s wives were responsible for supporting themselves.
Jeff, when you say, “from the journal entries that I have read in my own family history, it is very clear that the women in plural marrages were responsible for supporting themselves,” you are making a vague generalization similar to Scott’s. What you’ve read in the journals indicates what happened to the particular women who wrote them, but doesn’t necessarily indicate what happened to “women in plural marriages” in general, nor what happened to the wives of Brigham Young.
“I’m sure the statement has some basis in fact, but is the basis sufficient for applying this generalization to ALL plural wives?”
I don’t beleive anyone was saying it applied to all plural wives.
“What you’ve read in the journals indicates what happened to the particular women who wrote them”
Unless what he read wasn’t specific to those women’s experiences but were them relating their observations of other plural wives.
I see that I was using somewhat confusing wording when I wrote about the “family” or “families” of Brigham Young. I was speaking of President Young’s own wives and children, not of his siblings, cousins, etc.
The reason I’m focusing on this narrow range is that comment #8 addressed the way that President Young did (or allegedly did not) participate in the rearing of his children.
“I don’t beleive anyone was saying it applied to all plural wives.”
Kim, I was referring only to the exact words of Jeff’s (and Scott’s) statements. He said, “the women in plural marriages,” not “some of the women,” or some similarly qualified phrase.
Likewise, Scott’s exact words were “Plural wives…” not “Some plural wives…” or “X percent of plural wives…” or “The plural wives of Brother A and Brother B…” etc.
By saying “plural wives were often expected to” rather than “plural wives were always expected to”, Scott makes the implication that it was not universal.