Comments on: Polygamy: Origins

By: Dave Banack

Dave Banack — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:04:45 +0000

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I’m going to close down the comment thread at this point.

By: Leo

Leo — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:24:16 +0000

In DC 132 –the 3 laws governing polygamy–1. wife consent 2. virgin 3. not espoused–all 3 broken by Josesph.

By: John

John — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:38:37 +0000

The origin of polygamy is Lamech. Murderer and a descendant of Cain.

By: WI-Member

WI-Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:30:41 +0000

Aaron, a living man can be sealed to more than one living woman. If he is divorced and receives a sealing clearance, he can be sealed to a new wife. A divorced or widowed woman must have her first sealing canceled in order to be sealed to another man.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 02:55:05 +0000

Aaron I would like to see the policy change for a variety of reasons. (Contrast it with say work for the dead where the Church tends to adopt a "seal them and let the Lord work it out in the Millennium view) However to be quite fair to the brethren it would require a revelation. And I doubt people are pushing for new revelations on polygamy. (grin) Still I do hope the sealing rule becomes a bit more even in the future.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:26:11 +0000

I’m intrigued by the ideas about the intersections of doctrine and practice that Dave brought up and of the ambiguous place polyandry holds in all of this. According to Church practice, and arguably doctrine, a living man cannot be sealed to more than one living woman and vis-versa. If a woman dies, as I understand it, her living widower can be sealed to another woman, with the assumption that polygamy exists in the afterlife. A living widowed woman cannot be sealed to another man if she remarries following the death of her first husband without annulling the initial sealing. However, in performing vicarious work for the dead, we are permitted to seal a woman to multiple husbands, provided all involved parties are deceased. (See https://www.lds.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work/chapter-7-providing-temple-ordinances).

In this latter case, I think the implied assumption is that we don’t know which husband and woman wanted to be with and that everything will be sorted out in the eternities. I wouldn’t be surprised if church policy was changed at some point to allow a living widowed woman to be sealed to her second living husband in addition to her first. I’m not suggesting that there should be a doctrinal basis for polyandry in the afterlife. It just looks like a good example of how Church practice is grappling with the complexities of life and our cultural frameworks are interacting with our understanding of revelation and doctrine in changing ways, all while trying to be sensitive to the emotional and familial baggage that accompanies the merging of families and of processing the demands of life and death.

By: jcobabe

jcobabe — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:56:20 +0000

Plural marriage practices in the early Restoration seem to be most controversial among those who wish to provoke controversy.

By: Steve Fleming

Steve Fleming — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:14:44 +0000

And in terms of Compton’s dynastic explanation, I agree that the marriages were meant to link people together (that’s pretty clear) but that shared marriages (or what I call in the diss. “composite marriage”) would work better than polygyny since it would allow for more linking. Again, I argue that was JS’s earlier intent. And see my discussion of Helen Kimball (377-79) since she’s the one whose marriage people usually apply the term “dynastic” to.

By: Steve Fleming

Steve Fleming — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:06:35 +0000

That was just a brief explanation, Clark. Like I said above, I go over this in more detail in my diss. Take a look if your interested. 351-85.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:59:15 +0000

Steve (37) Like I said, I’m not disagreeing philosophically. I’ve actually thought that for a very long time going back to college. The “good for the goose, good for the gander” approach is the only thing that really makes it make sense IMO. So I believe it. I’m just not sure that Joseph’s marriage pattern is quite enough to establish it. Likewise Bennett is more than a little biased in his accounts to be trustworthy. I think it also has to be put up against the dynastic explanation of Sacred Loneliness etc. I think we can systematize to try and figure out a rational basis for things, but establishing that was actually what Joseph was thinking at the time seems a bit more difficult to do.

Susan (38), I don’t think anyone is saying all polygamists were bad. It was a difficult situation for all involved and some managed it much better than others. I think the sociological aspect is more that it incentivizes certain types of bad behavior by some. We see that sort of bad behavior among the 19th century Mormons. Although to be fair we should also compare it with broad relationships at the time which frankly were pretty horrific in general from a modern perspective. Polygamy might have been harder than monogamy but people in that era generally treated women quite poorly – a point feminist historians have made for a long time. (I’m not a feminist, but it’s hard to argue with most of their data here)

Of course there are plenty of bad relationships today too. But I think in general we have a more flourishing society in terms of women’s place in it and how they live. Perhaps not in all areas, but I’d definitely rather live today than then. What I think we see though is that good people often are good even in difficult societies.

By: Susan

Susan — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:25:04 +0000

Both my Maternal Grandmother and Paternal Grandmother were granddaughters of polygamists. I heard nothing but love from each of them as they described their experiences growing up with polygamy. Coincidentally, they both called the “other” grandmothers “aunt”. I once made the mistake (during my teenage rebellious years) of saying to my Maternal Grandmother (born in 1888) that I suspected most practicing polygamists did so because they were a bunch of “horny old men”. Boy, did she let me have it! She said they were wonderful men who married widows and other women who were in need of a companion. She referred to all of the women in the relationship as strong, good-hearted women who helped raise her.

By: Steve Fleming

Steve Fleming — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:54:32 +0000

Most of JS’s first wives were married. That’s begged some explanation for some time. For the most part, they did not leave their first husbands for JS. JC Bennett reported that JS told Nancy Rigdon that if she married JS she would be “free” to marry another man also. Hannah Ann Dubois seemed to have married Philo Dibble after she married JS. Stuff like that.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:14:20 +0000

Steve do you have any positive arguments for shared marriages? Beyond levirate marriage phraseology parallels? I admit that I find the notion interesting theologically. However for history I suspect you’ll need more positive evidence than mere rhetorical parallels. The problem is that we lack much by way of evidence so we’re left drawing big conclusions from rather limited data. That tends to entail our theories being rather weak.

By: Steve Fleming

Steve Fleming — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:48:55 +0000

Good points, hft. My argument on that point is sort of difficult to summarize as it’s linked to a larger argument I make in my dissertation about texts and ideas that I think influenced JS. But to make an attempt, as I argue in a post that I linked to in comment 14, I think JS’s original plan was one of shared marriages but that JS switched to polygyny with DC 132. Shared marriages fits a larger pattern that I note in my dissertation. Further, I argue that the phrase “raise up seed” also suggests shared marriages since the phrase is used in the Bible to refer to a woman having more than one husband.

I have found no instances of JS or anyone else using it as justification in the early years. However, the verse does suggest some kind of exception. Furthermore, there was an awful lot the early Mormons, especially JS kept quiet in the early years, particularly in regards to polygamy. So my argument in using Jacob 2:30 is it fitting a larger pattern of Joseph’s actions and teachings.

By: hope_for_things

hope_for_things — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:09:28 +0000

Steve Fleming,
You bring up an interesting hypothesis with your Jacob 2:30 idea, however, I’d love to know what historical evidence you have to support it. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that the early saints used Jacob 2:30 as any kind of justification for polygamy. The scant evidence I have seen shows that this interpretation of “raise up seed” wasn’t introduced until the late 1800s and wasn’t in the air during the early years. I’ve also seen some compelling evidence that our modern interpretation about the phrase “raise up seed” is actually a misreading of the meaning of that phrase. Thoughts?