It's amazing how long a person (especially a woman) can ignore this part of Mormonism. It just gets filed away, downplayed and left to fester. I wish someone had made me confront the issue head on when I was a whole lot younger!!
I see polygamy as a pretty straightforward corollary to believing families can be forever. If marriages are eternal and one can contract more than one marriage in mortal life, then polygamy of some sort is obvious.
I agree, polygamy would be obvious! However the church hides behind the term polygamy (when a man has more than one wife OR a woman has more than one husband) when really they mean polygyny (a man has more than one wife)
"They are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct." George A. Smith , Journal of Discourses , 3:291 .
"... the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of mortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people." Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 15, p. 227 227
"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..." Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862
To the Mormons I say - "Don't hate on women! Share the LOVE"
Polygyny is certainly how it was practiced back in the day. Either there is some unknown doctrinal reason for that or it is the result of people steeped in patriarchy trying to apply eternal principles as best they can.
Are they still steeped in Patriarchy? In the temple sealing (wedding) ceremony the woman 'gives herself' to the man and the man only 'receives her', he does not 'give himself'. A man can be sealed (married in the temple) to more than one woman at a time; a woman (generally) cannot be sealed to more than one man at a time. This is how things are done TODAY in the Mormon temple and as TBM it is how I understood the doctrine, i.e. One man with many wives.
Or do you mean to say that God has nothing to do with it? I mean if God actually gave us D&C section 132 then I can't see anything in there about me getting some hot male virgins to 'bless' me for all of eternity! If we're just talking about men trying to "apply eternal principles as best they can" then WHY was/is there no help from their God? Surely 'virtue' is rather important to him/her and a little clarification on the issue would have (still could) help. You can't have it both ways! Either this is a man-made idea and hence the patriarchal stench OR it is from God and He/she didn't care enough about his/her daughters to be more specific, fair or equitable. Either way I say phooey to that!!! Misogynistic men or a misogynistic God? what a choice!
As a side note (I'm sure you're already aware Retief :) but for our other readers) Joseph Smith married women who already had husbands of their own. He sent the husband off on a mission for months/years and then seduced their wife. Nice.
Personally I think that Joe and co. actually believed God wanted them to restore some kind of Abrahamic order OR they studies Abraham's days and then saw a way to get some extra virgin poonanie!
...and then proceeded to put the seal of God on it all!
Are they still steeped in Patriarchy? Uhhh, yes. The patriarchy is alive and well in our society here in the US. I don't know about where you are. It is up to us to fix that.
Blogger just ate the rest of my comment, lets see if I can reconstruct it.
I reject your false dilemma:) Of course I can have it both ways. As with many of the revelations given to Joseph Smith, 132 came in response to a specific question, i.e. "What's the deal with Abraham having multiple wives." Perhaps we should not be surprised that the response deals mostly with multiple wives.
The first part lays out the underlying principles involved: marriages solemnized with the Lord's authority last even after death and only coupled by such a marriage can a man and a woman become gods together; singly we can not. Then there are some specifics about Abraham and about adultery. Mostly to the effect that this law isn't license to just f*#k around, sex outside of a commitment is adultery for men and women. And some about Emma Smith: not to partake of something she was offered, (a divorce? a second husband perhaps? I don't know) to receive those given to Joseph, to cleave unto Joseph, and to abide this commandment or be destroyed. Then it ends with "I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present."
So I do have it both ways as correct principles are taught while implementation is left in our flawed hands and we are clearly told that the information we have is incomplete. It seems to be pretty standard practice in the way the Lord operates. Isn't that basically the whole plan of salvation? He seems to be all about us learning on the job.
I will serve you back a dilemma to consider. Either this is a one sided misogynistic teaching, or Joseph Smith was engaged in polyandry. Surely polyandry would make this teaching two-sided. (As an aside, I don't dispute some married women marrying Joseph, but I would use caution in trusting my sources regarding all the events in Nauvoo.) I'm curious that you seem to regard both the polyandry and the one sided polygyny as black marks.
Finally, extra virgin poonanie, is that on the same shelf as the extra virgin olive oil?
Hahahaha, I think you'll only find it on the black market these days.
From what I remember the husbands were conveniently 'disposed of' and I don't mean killed. It was also kept secret from some of them. If the polyandry had been common practice so in effect the Mormons had been practicing actual polygamy with men and women having multiple partners then I wouldn't be upset about it. It's the commandment for the women to accept extra wives into their marriages "or be destroyed" that I think gets most people pissed off. Polygamy practiced with full choice would be easy to accept.
I think any reading of the 'scriptures' regarding plural marriage that attempt to suggest that things may be fairer later on are not only delusional but incredibly insensitive to the women who were directly effected by the practice and the women who today are 'threatened' with it's looming reintroduction.
I have had people say to me that it is like an Abrahamic test. As disgusting as that story is to me anyway it is a ridiculous comparison because at the last minute his son was spared. Emma etc were not spared.
I obviously feel very strongly about the subject. A god who would threaten me with destruction for not accepting another wife into my marriage is a bully and a piece of shit. I hate the Mormon God. Luckily he is pure fabrication so my anger then got transferred to Joe Smith et al.
I agree that we all need to continue to strive for equality for all people - addressing equality across gender, race, sexuality, age etc etc ... The Mormon church continues to be a bastion for such oppression and needs a massive shake up. You work from within and I'll work from without... united by our desire for equality :D
Yep, that's pretty much what it says.
ReplyDeleteVery funny indeed.....unless you were a mormon women during the days of polygamy, then....not so funny at all.
ReplyDeleteNorm
It's amazing how long a person (especially a woman) can ignore this part of Mormonism. It just gets filed away, downplayed and left to fester. I wish someone had made me confront the issue head on when I was a whole lot younger!!
ReplyDeleteI see polygamy as a pretty straightforward corollary to believing families can be forever. If marriages are eternal and one can contract more than one marriage in mortal life, then polygamy of some sort is obvious.
ReplyDeleteI agree, polygamy would be obvious! However the church hides behind the term polygamy (when a man has more than one wife OR a woman has more than one husband) when really they mean polygyny (a man has more than one wife)
ReplyDelete"They are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct." George A. Smith , Journal of Discourses , 3:291 .
"... the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of mortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people." Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 15, p. 227 227
"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..." Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862
To the Mormons I say - "Don't hate on women! Share the LOVE"
btw - did Brigham Young just refer to polygamy as a religion!? Boy did they love their nookie :P
ReplyDeletePolygyny is certainly how it was practiced back in the day. Either there is some unknown doctrinal reason for that or it is the result of people steeped in patriarchy trying to apply eternal principles as best they can.
ReplyDeleteAre they still steeped in Patriarchy? In the temple sealing (wedding) ceremony the woman 'gives herself' to the man and the man only 'receives her', he does not 'give himself'. A man can be sealed (married in the temple) to more than one woman at a time; a woman (generally) cannot be sealed to more than one man at a time. This is how things are done TODAY in the Mormon temple and as TBM it is how I understood the doctrine, i.e. One man with many wives.
ReplyDeleteOr do you mean to say that God has nothing to do with it? I mean if God actually gave us D&C section 132 then I can't see anything in there about me getting some hot male virgins to 'bless' me for all of eternity! If we're just talking about men trying to "apply eternal principles as best they can" then WHY was/is there no help from their God? Surely 'virtue' is rather important to him/her and a little clarification on the issue would have (still could) help. You can't have it both ways! Either this is a man-made idea and hence the patriarchal stench OR it is from God and He/she didn't care enough about his/her daughters to be more specific, fair or equitable. Either way I say phooey to that!!! Misogynistic men or a misogynistic God? what a choice!
As a side note (I'm sure you're already aware Retief :) but for our other readers) Joseph Smith married women who already had husbands of their own. He sent the husband off on a mission for months/years and then seduced their wife. Nice.
Personally I think that Joe and co. actually believed God wanted them to restore some kind of Abrahamic order OR they studies Abraham's days and then saw a way to get some extra virgin poonanie!
...and then proceeded to put the seal of God on it all!
Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!
Are they still steeped in Patriarchy?
ReplyDeleteUhhh, yes. The patriarchy is alive and well in our society here in the US. I don't know about where you are. It is up to us to fix that.
Blogger just ate the rest of my comment, lets see if I can reconstruct it.
I reject your false dilemma:) Of course I can have it both ways. As with many of the revelations given to Joseph Smith, 132 came in response to a specific question, i.e. "What's the deal with Abraham having multiple wives." Perhaps we should not be surprised that the response deals mostly with multiple wives.
ReplyDeleteThe first part lays out the underlying principles involved: marriages solemnized with the Lord's authority last even after death and only coupled by such a marriage can a man and a woman become gods together; singly we can not. Then there are some specifics about Abraham and about adultery. Mostly to the effect that this law isn't license to just f*#k around, sex outside of a commitment is adultery for men and women. And some about Emma Smith: not to partake of something she was offered, (a divorce? a second husband perhaps? I don't know) to receive those given to Joseph, to cleave unto Joseph, and to abide this commandment or be destroyed. Then it ends with "I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present."
ReplyDeleteSo I do have it both ways as correct principles are taught while implementation is left in our flawed hands and we are clearly told that the information we have is incomplete. It seems to be pretty standard practice in the way the Lord operates. Isn't that basically the whole plan of salvation? He seems to be all about us learning on the job.
ReplyDeleteI will serve you back a dilemma to consider. Either this is a one sided misogynistic teaching, or Joseph Smith was engaged in polyandry. Surely polyandry would make this teaching two-sided. (As an aside, I don't dispute some married women marrying Joseph, but I would use caution in trusting my sources regarding all the events in Nauvoo.) I'm curious that you seem to regard both the polyandry and the one sided polygyny as black marks.
ReplyDeleteFinally, extra virgin poonanie, is that on the same shelf as the extra virgin olive oil?
Hahahaha, I think you'll only find it on the black market these days.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I remember the husbands were conveniently 'disposed of' and I don't mean killed. It was also kept secret from some of them. If the polyandry had been common practice so in effect the Mormons had been practicing actual polygamy with men and women having multiple partners then I wouldn't be upset about it. It's the commandment for the women to accept extra wives into their marriages "or be destroyed" that I think gets most people pissed off. Polygamy practiced with full choice would be easy to accept.
I think any reading of the 'scriptures' regarding plural marriage that attempt to suggest that things may be fairer later on are not only delusional but incredibly insensitive to the women who were directly effected by the practice and the women who today are 'threatened' with it's looming reintroduction.
I have had people say to me that it is like an Abrahamic test. As disgusting as that story is to me anyway it is a ridiculous comparison because at the last minute his son was spared. Emma etc were not spared.
I obviously feel very strongly about the subject. A god who would threaten me with destruction for not accepting another wife into my marriage is a bully and a piece of shit. I hate the Mormon God. Luckily he is pure fabrication so my anger then got transferred to Joe Smith et al.
I agree that we all need to continue to strive for equality for all people - addressing equality across gender, race, sexuality, age etc etc ... The Mormon church continues to be a bastion for such oppression and needs a massive shake up. You work from within and I'll work from without... united by our desire for equality :D