A friend once told me, “Three moves are as good as a fire.” Having just moved, I can attest to the benefit of massive purging. One such benefit came in the form of the discovery of some lost notes.
Whenever humanly possible, I attend Education Week at BYU. Years ago, when we lived in Florida probably in the late 90′s I attended a class that had three overflows. It was given my Kenneth Godfrey and titled, “Plural Marriage.” Now, I suspect, you understand the overflow situation.
I wrote down some interesting stuff, but there was one quote that I’ve been looking for ever since. Godfrey repeated it again and again because everyone wanted the specific wording. I was almost comical, but at least a testament to me that I’m not the only crazy person in the church. The quote is from a letter from the First Presidency to Brother Godfrey (and, presumably, to some other CES-type folk) to correct misinformation perpetuated (not without authoritative backup, mind you) by seminary teachers. The letter said:
There is no truth to the statement that you must practice or accept plural marriage to remain in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.
I feel better already.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Yay!
Me too.
I’ve always been of the opinion that if we are not required of it here, we won’t be there. Especially after reading Jacob 5.
Thanks for posting that. I’m going to make a poster for my wall for __those days__ when the issue is off my “shelf”.
Narrator:
“…And Mormon women flooded the streets and set their petticoats on fire.”
:tooth: :tooth: :tooth:
“There is no truth to the statement that you must practice or accept plural marriage to remain in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.”
You know, this is a great relief to me! I’ve heard so many times that we are foolish if we think we will not have to practice plural marriage in the celestial kingdom. I know there are sects of fundamentalists (some of whom are still active in our church and just hide their alternative lifestyle) who believe we should still be practicing plural marriage now. Hey wait, is that what this smiley :threesome: is for?? :shocked:
:rolling::rolling:
We have a polygamy emoticon. Wow, I never realized that.
:grouphug: this one would work too, no?
Um, Lewis, that’s the “free love” emoticon. :shocked: Does it belong on a Mormon Momma blog? :devil:
I think those old Pligs of days gone by knew what they were doing.
Let’s see now, if I have ten wives each living in a different house, even better if they are a wee away from one another it would be so much more easy to just “disappear” from time to time. Each wife thinking I am helping another when actually I am out on the river bank with my fishing pole, or maybe just sitting in the shade of the popular trees contemplating the mysteries of the gospel. Either way it works for me.
My Great Granddad was a wise ol’ codger. I gotta’ tip my hat to him.
Wally
For someone who spends so much time posting about compassion for abusive parents and talking about personal abuse, this response pretty much sucks. Jerk.
FWIW, I agree that the comment was insensitive, but the wink
tells me Wally was being (or intending to be) more sarcastic than being a jerk. I try to err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, nevermind. I get in a rush and don’t read carefully. I withdraw the question.
Michelle D:
Thanks for the back up. I intended no ill will to anyone. My Great Granddad, a Welsh convert who played a very large part of the settling of Tooele County and then sent by Brother Benson up to Cache County to settle that place was a polygamist. So in our family we joke about the practice often. I forget that sometimes others do not see the humor. I do apologize to all if I offended. Had you been with me when I made the crack you would have seen the twinkle in my eyes and the mischievous smile on my face. No offence was intended at all. I have no problem laughing at the strange side of my heritage. And we old Mormon Pioneer stock do have a wee strange heritage. Like the fact that most of us are cousins. Golly Gee, if I were to throw a rock in Tooele or Logan and / or surrounding farmland I would most likely hit a relative.
Top of the day to all.
Wally
Wally, I’ll bet I’m one of them…
Wally, I think it’s easier to get the twinkle in your eye when you’re on the “receiving end” of the joke rather than on the sacrificing end.
I guess that from the five postings previous to my first one here in this thread I thought the humor would be appreciated. The real sacrificing end of this law was made by the old timers in the early days of the church. I have the journals of my Great Grandparents that talk about the blessings and hardships of living this law. Bottom line they did it because they believed in the gospel and they were instructed to by their church leaders, hence ( after prayerful contemplation ) by their Lord. As the saying goes, “no one said it would be easy, just that it would be worth it”.
I understand the law, I make jokes about it because it hurts nothing, but the truth is I personally would only live the law if I were directed to by the Lord. At this particular time in history our faith believes in obeying the laws of the land, so it is not an issue. For that I am grateful.
Brother Joseph was rather forcefully persuaded into obeying the commandment by an Angel of the Lord holding a rather menising sword. It was not easy for him to follow this directive. I am quite certain that this law was taken advantage of by some of the old timers, and it is abused by many so called fundamentalists today. It is clear that the abuse of this law has caused much tragedy, much heartache not only for those fundamentalists but for all of us who call ourselves Mormons. It is sad when people get so twisted they will not listen to the council of the Lord. And it is sad when people are fooled by others who claim to be counseling for the Lord. ( Warren Jeffs and the like ) Ouch! My heart really goes out for those people, especially the women and the children. They seem to pay the premium price. It is nice to know that justice prevails in the hands of our Saviour.
Wally
agardner:
friends with one or two of them. I must claim and love them all, good or bad because they are blood. They are my family. The four names closest to my generation are Allen, Clark (as in J. Ruben) Price and Maughan. If your family tree includes any of these we may be closer than we think. And I think that’s cool. I am always happy to find another relative. And if not, I am always happy to find another friend. One of my favorite missionary companions is a Gardner. He is from Norther Utah. Up in Box Elder County. He now lives over in Cache County, Wellsville.
Chances are very good if you are of the old pioneer stock you are one of them. ( My cousins ) And if not you are probably good ( or maybe bad, but we hope not bad
Smiles to all.
Wally
Don’t know any N. Utah Gardners. My Tooele polygamist ancestors (and they were only in Tooele for a short time before going to southern Utah) were Leavitts and Huntsmans.
I have a little different view of polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith. Have you read Mormon Enigma? I bought it at Deseret Book and I thought it was a great book. But it definitely changed my feelings about polygamy and why it was ever practiced.
agardner:
Thank you for the direction to the book. I will look it up. I must admit that you have pegged my curiosity. Thank you.
On the surface, I do not believe that my family is tie in with either the Leavitts or the Huntsmans. I will do some checking in my genealogy papers. However I know in my time several of each of these names. I must say that as friends of mine I have never been given reason to think other than good thoughts of either name. Very good solid folks.
I know I am tied in with the names Atkin, Godfrey, Russell, Sagers, Hunsaker, Whitehouse, Johnson, Roundy, Hansen, Ore, Pond, Peterson…… Holy Moly the list goes on. My family has been true believers in genealogy, and I am way happy that we have been. I see folks every day and say “Hay Cous’, How you doing?” It makes our friendships bind just a wee closer. I really enjoy watching there eyes light up when I can tell them stories about their Grand Parents and Great Grandparents. When I can share a wee of their history with them.
It was my Mother that taught us just how important it is knowing our ancestors, doing our genealogy. I must say I have the best mom ( she has passed on some 28 years ago ) I could have ever been blessed with. I really do not know what I did to deserve the wonderful parents I was / am blessed with. They both have crossed the veil now ( Dad about 18 years ago ) but they are yet a very grand influence in my life. I know they visit with me from time to time just to check in with me and give me a little extra help. Knowing the gospel is true is wonderful. Simply wonderful.
Wally
Disclaimer about the book: Tread lightly. It changed the way I felt about Joseph Smith…not in a good way. But it was a well-written and interesting book. Almost two years after reading it, I’m still reconciling things in my own mind. I suppose I was a little naive to think that since it was sold at DB it would not be negative towards him – but it did bring up some concerns for me, at least in regards to polygamy.
Well, Wally, your “joke” was about the grand ability to deceive all your wives. I know you meant it in jest, but personally I don’t find it very funny. I’m sorry if you find that ultra-sensitive, but the REASON I posted the info from this letter is because I grew up being taught that only those women who would share their husbands could be exalted. Having that as your spiritual reality isn’t something I find humorous.
In addition, I suggest that even when “the law” was NOT “twisted” it was still very painful to many. There is more than ample documentation of that.
Mormon Enigma was a tough read for me. I started reading it in about the early 90′s and put it away before finishing a year later.
I grew up mostly in Utah. I’m a 7th generation Mormon married to a 5th generation Mormon (we’re Smiths, for heaven’s sake). I graduated from seminary and then from BYU. And I had no idea until I was an adult that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Brigham Young, sure. Everyone knew that. (The Beehive House practically flaunts it.) But JS’s plural marriages never came up.
I actually thought that must have been some monumental oversight in my education, until the day I mentioned at church (in Florida) that Eliza R. Snow was married to both Joseph and Brigham. I actually just thought it was a cool factoid when we discussing a hymn she wrote. The class practically stoned me. No one in the room knew.
So, the big question buzzing in my head was why this used to be kept so quiet? And why is it still barely acknowledged? “That’s in the past. Next question.”
And the bigger question is, when something so culturally and emotionally appalling to these women was asked of them–and they OBEYED out of pure testimony and desire to be righteous–why have they been all but erased from our history, out of some sense of discomfort?
Emma is touted all over the planet (with good reason–at least we’re not collectively beating her up posthumously anymore). But what about the other women who married him? Do we learn about them? Do we make movies about them?
Look at the biographies of the prophets in the current series of manuals. Most of the plural wives aren’t so much as mentioned. They are invisible. They don’t exist in history. While super important things like jobs and callings and education are included, WIVES are erased. When they are mentioned–to the best of my recollection–it is only done in a way that appears to be consecutive, rather than concurrent. Misleading at best.
Another book that is said to be quite informative, well-documented, etc., is In Sacred Loneliness. Haven’t read it yet. I’ll have to have a stronger constitution first.
Well, Wally, your “joke” was about the grand ability to deceive all your wives. I know you meant it in jest, but personally I don’t find it very funny. I’m sorry if you find that ultra-sensitive, but the REASON I posted the info from this letter is because I grew up being taught that only those women who would share their husbands could be exalted. Having that as your spiritual reality isn’t something I find humorous. And a man implying that he’ll use it against his wives is offensive to me.
In addition, I suggest that even when “the law” was NOT “twisted” it was still very painful to many. There is more than ample documentation of that.
Mormon Enigmawas a tough read for me. I started reading it in about the early 90′s and put it away before finishing a year later.
I grew up mostly in Utah. I’m a 7th generation Mormon married to a 5th generation Mormon (we’re Smiths, for heaven’s sake). I graduated from seminary and then from BYU. And I had no idea until I was an adult that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Brigham Young, sure. Everyone knew that. (The Beehive House practically flaunts it.) But JS’s plural marriages never came up.
I actually thought that must have been some monumental oversight in my education, until the day I mentioned at church (in Florida) that Eliza R. Snow was married to both Joseph and Brigham. I actually just thought it was a cool factoid when we discussing a hymn she wrote. The class practically stoned me. No one in the room knew.
So, the big question buzzing in my head was why this used to be kept so quiet? And why is it still barely acknowledged? “That’s in the past. Next question.”
And the bigger question is, when something so culturally and emotionally appalling to these women was asked of them–and they OBEYED out of pure testimony and desire to be righteous–why have they been all but erased from our history, out of some sense of discomfort?
Emma is touted all over the planet (with good reason–at least we’re not collectively beating her up posthumously anymore). But what about the other women who married him? Do we learn about them? Do we make movies about them?
Look at the biographies of the prophets in the current series of manuals. Most of the plural wives aren’t so much as mentioned. They are invisible. They don’t exist in history. While super important things like jobs and callings and education are included, WIVES are erased. When they are mentioned–to the best of my recollection–it is only done in a way that appears to be consecutive, rather than concurrent. Misleading at best.
Another book that is said to be quite informative, well-documented, etc., isIn Sacred Loneliness. Haven’t read it yet. I’ll have to have a stronger constitution first.
Just out of curiosity, what about it was tough? Was it what it said, or how it was written, or was it just boring for you?
I’ve always been interested in biographies, so I saw this one about Emma Smith and picked it right up. But boy, it sure painted a different picture of Joseph than what I had always been raised to believe. That was tough.
When I grew up, I heard very little about polygamy other than in my own family history. If the subject did come up, the explanation for it was always:
-It was because there were a lot more women than men and they needed men to help care for these families
-The marriages were more spiritual in nature (i.e. sealings) than physical (i.e. being a husband to different women in every sense of the word)
-It was commanded of the Lord and Emma accepted it before Joseph started practicing it. All of Joseph’s marriages were known by and approved of (although reluctantly) by Emma
Let’s just say that Mormon Enigma painted quite a different picture than that.
My reaction was similar to yours, I think. I was just shocked at the secrecy and what certainly seemed like infidelity. I was so hurt for Emma that I could hardly bear it.
And yet, often the men didn’t care for the wives and children at all. Some of the wives worked (you remember Brigham Young’s support of women working? wonder why?). In many cases the wives were sent away with their children when the political trouble started.
Cough, cough.
I think history shows this to be utterly false.
The whole polyandry thing, too, has never been officially addressed as far as I know.
I have a different insight to Joseph Smith than most people I know. It is one that I do not flaunt or go into great detail about. However after some one on one with some of the General Authorities of the Church what I knew to be real was confirmed to me. Let me put it this way. I know that Joseph Smith was and is yet a living prophet of Jesus Christ and God our Father. That he did without a doubt restore the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that restored gospel. This is not a testimony of faith, but a testimony of pure knowledge.
He, Joseph Smith was not perfect. No more than any other prophet of the Old or New Testament, The Book of Mormon or any of the prophets since the restoration of the gospel. They are mortal men. Subject to the same frailties as you or I. I do not worship him but could one become one one-hundredth of the person he was / is they would have their calling and election made sure. He is not Christ, but he is the most Christ Like man to have walked among us. Study the life of Joseph Smith, and you have studied the life of Jesus Christ.
This is only part of my testimony, and I do leave it with you in the name of Jesus Christ.
Amen
Wally
It’s interesting that this should come up this week. I’ve been thinking about it a lot. In a few weeks I will teach a Joseph Smith lesson which is composed mostly of Joseph’s letters to Emma. It almost seems. . .hmmm. . .disloyal. . .to deliberately expose their private relationship, when so much about their marriage had to be in the public eye. I can see, however, what the manual is trying to accomplish; Joseph and Emma had a good relationship in the midst of great difficulty, and that could be instructive for any married couple. I wanted to know more about them, especially if the Church wanted us to know more about them.
So, I went looking. Some of what I found on the internet disturbed me a little. Among other things, the Wikipedia entry on Joseph Smith is not exactly glowing. I came away from reading that feeling a little disillusioned. And then I remembered a commitment I made to myself several years ago when the White Salamander letter came out. I was younger, and the whole White Salamander thing kind of shook my testimony. Eventually a logical explanation was revealed, the truth about it was told, and at that point, I had a discussion with myself. I told myself that either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or he was not. (My dad is certain that he is not, my mom is certain that he is, and I grew up with that.) I told myself that I needed to decide once and for all and quit vascillating. After studying and praying extensively, I decided that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Period. He said himself that his name would be had for good and ill all over the world. Now when I read things that aren’t exactly complimentary of him, I remember the commitment I made to be true to the prophet Joseph Smith and his testimony. If there are those who detract from his name, there is a logical explanation. They may be misinformed. They may not have access to crucial information. They may be pointedly lying. Whatsoever God commands is right, and Joseph Smith spent his life doing what God commanded him to do, even when it was incredibly difficult. I have nothing but respect for him. I don’t intend to lose that testimony again, even when Satan tries to whisper “cult mentality” in my ear. Only Satan would try to confuse cult mentality with trusting testimony.
One of the things I learned in doing family history work is that the principle of eternal sealing was revealed before the Saints were given specific instructions about whom they should be sealed TO–I guess because they hadn’t thought to ask yet. They knew they were to be sealed long before they knew they were to be sealed to their OWN FAMILIES. Wanting to be obedient and part of the unbroken chain, they sealed themselves to prophets and apostles. Even Wikipedia mentions that it is not known if Joseph Smith consummated the marriages with his purported 33 wives. They paint him as a lustful, untrustworthy manipulator. Of course Satan will do what he can to see that Joseph’s character is sullied. (Can’t have people trusting his character; they might trust the Church he founded. If they trust the Church he founded, they might find their way to exaltation. Can’t have that.)
Along with my commitment to trust Joseph Smith, I committed not to read, watch, or listen to derogatory media concerning Joseph Smith or the LDS church. No good comes from it. Either it is true, or it is not. If it is true, that is all we need to know.
I feel for you, Angie. My sister had a similar experience. Her mother-in-law gave her a book about Joseph Smith for Christmas one year. She felt certain that her mother-in-law was clueless about the fact that it was an anti-Joseph Smith book; it looked innocent enough. She read it in order to be able to tell her mother-in-law that she had read it. It was as unsettling to her as Mormon Enigma was to you, Angie. It caused her years of doubt. She struggled to regain a firm testimony of Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission, and after she had it back, she also vowed she would never read another book like it again. (No sense in swallowing poison to find out if it truly is toxic. A certain amount of trust is wisdom.)
okay – I don’t have a dictionary nearby. . . polyandry? I don’t know what that is or what it has to do with the church. Can you inform my uniformed mind?
Polyandry IS an unsettling idea, Alison. I also have not seen that addressed. Maybe it seems childish, but I trust that there is an explanation. If Joseph Smith WAS involved with polyandry, there was a reason. (The reason may have been simply that God commanded it–a tough test, perhaps designed specifically for a prophet. God has been known to ask prophets to break civil laws.)
pol?y?an?dry? ?/?p?li?ændri, ?p?li?æn-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pol-ee-an-dree, pol-ee-an-] Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun 1. the practice or condition of having more than one husband at one time. Compare monandry (def. 1).
2. (among female animals) the habit or system of having two or more mates, either simultaneously or successively.
3. Botany. the state of being polyandrous.
——————————————————————————–
Origin:
1770 ?80; < Gk polyandría. See poly-, -andry
Sorry, but I just thought this would make it easer.
Wally
huh? So, polyandry would be a woman having more than one husband while polygamy is man with more than one wife?
Serena, thank you for your sympathy, but I don’t regret reading the book. It gave me a whole new respect for Emma, and in a way Joseph as well. What did bother me about it is that there is a lot that happened that subsequent church leaders seem to have explained away that doesn’t add up to me. It doesn’t change my testimony of him as a prophet, but it does make me realize that men are imperfect. Yes, even prophets. And while Joseph did many admirable things, I personally do not believe that polygamy/polyandry was one of them. The way it was lived is not the way it is purported to have been lived by those who taught me about when I was young.
As for him consummating the marriages, while it will never be proven for certain, there is quite ample evidence that he did, and in fact possibly fathered children with at least one plural wife. Some wives Emma knew of, and some she didn’t. And there were times that she was very, very unhappy about the way it all played out, and that she found out about it after the fact. On at least one occasion, she ordered a marriage to be dissolved because she had found out about it after Joseph had already moved the woman into the house, and she saw them together (I believe in an embrace? It’s been awhile since I’ve read it).
I think the polyandry issue that Alison is referring to is that there were some of Joseph’s plural wives who were still married to other men. In other words, men were married to multiple women, women were married to multiple men. All in all, it’s a chapter in church history I’d just as soon forget. Still, I don’t think the church should try to explain it away as they have in the past. It was what it was, and we should admit it, accept it or don’t, and move on.
Polyandry: having more than one husband at a time
Polygyny: having more than one wife
Polygamy: having more than one spouse
Some of Joseph Smith’s plural wives were already married to other men. 11 of them if I remember correctly. The most well-known is probably Marinda Hyde, Orson Hyde’s wife.
There is evidence the Joseph consummated at least some of his plural marriages. But davidson is right, there appears to have been confusion about what the sealings meant and to whom they should be done.
Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, polyandrous wife of Joseph, “Remarks”, April 14, 1905, BYU Lee Library (from a talk she gave at BYU)
Kindred sprit, Angie.
Yes. Please move on.