Plural Families

[_Gazelam]

Truman Madsen released a series of DVDs entitle "Sacred Ground". In them he travels to all of the various historical locations in the early days of the church and discusses what occured there. In the next to last one he discusses Plural marriage and its history and meaning. I thought what he was really insightful and wanted to share it, so I transcribed it from the film and I also want to add one other thing, so here you are:

(With the Nauvoo temple in the background)
The Prophets brother Hyrum had a wonderful wife named Jerushah who passed away. He later married Mary Fielding, and one day in close communion with the prophet he said "What will become of me in the life to come? Will I have Jerushah? Will I have Mary? Both?"

That was the beginning for him of understanding there could be a restoration of an ancient order of things, begining with Abraham, that yes, there could be a second or even third wife, and that they would be a blessing in extending ones posterity and fullfilling the role of Fatherhood.

At first Hyrum, and the Prophets wife Emma, and others, were struck with astonishment at this idea. Even though it was Biblical, even though there were precedent, and even though some of them knew that in the Jewish tradition, especially after wars, polygamy was introduced to make possible to single women the privilige of marriage and motherhood. Still the majority of them came from New England and had been taught strict rules of propriety in marriage. This was for them a bitter pill. But it began to unfold in their minds and in their hearts.

(On the banks of the Mississippi)
Lorenzo Snow comes home from a mission in England, and notices that his sister Eliza, who had taught some of the Prophets children, was now living under his roof. Eliza says to the Prophet "You need to talk to him and explain." So the Prophet takes Lorenzo for a walk, down by the Mississippi. They sit on a log, and the prophet explains:

"Lorenzo, we are beginning to introduce the principle of plural marriage or plural families. Your sister Eliza has been sealed to me, with the approval of my wife Emma." Lorenzo bursts out "Joseph, I don't think I could live this principle" This is a time when the idea of Eternal Marriage is as foreign to some of our converts as would be plural marriage. And the prophet replies "Lorenzo, the principles of integrity and honesty are established in your character, and in due time you will be able to live this principle in righteousness." And then Lorenzo says "Joseph, it seems to me you have received great additional divine power while I've been away on my mission." And the Prophet replies "It is true, I have been greatly blessed."

This is the seed of what was the beginning of an extensive effort to teach what the Prophet had literally postponed and agonized over. He said to many of those who were hesitant, that an angel had come to him, literally as it were with a drawn sword, and said you cannot move the Church forward one more inch until you begin to live this principle. And what he taught them, among other things, was that as it says in the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon "If I will, saith the Lord, raise up seed, I will command" and now the command had been given.

Eliza herself, when asked how could she do it, said she became convinced of the beauty of the principle and fell in love with the principle.

(Nauvoo Temple in the background)
There is a story that Brigham, walking with the Prophet one night to his home here in Nauvoo, was in discussion about this and Brigham kept saying to the Prophet "Are you sure Joseph, is this of God? Are you sure?" And the Prophet said "Yes Brigham, I am."

They reach the gate, and Brigham is still shaking his head. "I don't know Joseph." The gate opens, and Brighams wife who is upstairs in the bedroom with the window open, hears Brigham walk toward the house and up onto the porch. And she hears his hand as it were on the doorknob. Then she hears "Joseph" who is now walking away

"Yes?"

"It is of God, goodnight"

"goodnight"

Well everyone knows that Brigham Young lived the principle.

The question that is rarely asked about the whole process is what did the women think they were really doing when they entered into this practice? One by one their journals tell the story. They come to the conviction of this in tension with their earlier training only through a spiritual experience. They had to get a testimony, just as they had of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that Christ himself had advocated and required this, and that the result would be a posterity that would be righteous as well as numerous. They really believed that this process would enable them to apply the spirit of the law of concecration to their marriage, and that the Lord would send into their families choice spirits that they could then nurture in the admonition of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they would become a veritable core of honest, faithful discipleship, and they would go throughout the world, and continue to build the kingdom.

that's what they thought they were doing. The world at large wondered. If the issue is "but was it not intended by men who were seeking their own gratification", the answer has to be obvious to anyone who thinks for 30 seconds, if that is the issue, if it is libertineism, if it is indulgence, there are other, and easier, and less costly ways to achieve it.

If you settle down and build a second home, and have a wife and family and have to provide for them and love them and support them, that's hard. The other way is easy. Polygamy was not intended to be easy. And those who entered it did so aware of the personal sacrifice and the conquering od selfishness that it would require. The history shows us that there were tragedies and there were setbacks and there were just as many problems with it as with monogamy, but the outcome overall was that in fact a faithfull number of faithfull children came into these families and they remained the anchor families in the kingdom.




More to come.... its late

Gaz

[Guest]

I guess I posted this in the Terestrial forum by accident:

Gazelem, this topic has not only shaken but destroyed my faith in the Mormon church. Where is the wiggle room?

Joseph Smith:
Performed illegal and unauthorized marriages in the state of Illinois (a punishable crime)
He deceived and humiliated his one legal wife numerous times (breaking his original marriage vows continually)
He married some women that were married with children
He had sex with at least some (Several personal diaries and later public statements/affidavits - for example - History of BF Johnston - TBM)
He had children with at least some (Several personal diaries or TBM's are explicit on this issue)
He lied many times in public (The record is open)
He justified his crimes by testifying that he was forced by an angel of God (Agency to act... what was Satan's plan?)
He attempted to cover his whoredoms through secret oaths
Keep in mind that William Law was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ when he refused to accept Mormon adultery - he later presented his disgust by way of the Nauvoo Expositor. 90% of his alegations were dead on. After 1852, the leaders publically admitted most of it for over 50 years.

Gaz, I'll assume you have never read it. I hadn't till a year ago. Smith had the press destroyed at an attempt to unring the bell.

What would I have done if he came for my only daughter?

What the problem is?


Marvin J. Ashton made the following comments in his sermon "This Is No Harm" (from Ensign magazine 2000):
"A lie is any communication given to another with the intent to deceive." A lie can be effectively communicated without words ever being spoken. Sometimes a nod of the head or silence can deceive....
It is a tragedy to be the victim of lies. Being trapped in the snares of dishonesty and misrepresentation does not happen instantaneously. One little lie or dishonest act leads to another until the perpetrator is caught in the web of deceit. ...

A wise person will not allow himself to be victimized by the unscrupulous because of false pride. Oftentimes people are swindled because false pride prevents them from asking questions and seeking additional information. For fear of embarrassment or being thought ignorant, a prospect ofttimes nods his head in the affirmative when he really doesn't understand the glib salesman's line of chatter. "What does that mean?" "What are the risks?" "What are the pitfalls?" "What is the history of the company?" "What references do you have?" are questions worthy of pursuit. ....If prudent decisions cannot be reached on the basis of one's own expertise, advice should be sought from knowledgeable and trusted counselors. Offers that cannot wait or stand review are not worthy.

Here's a very compelling article by Richard Packham:

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/lying.htm

[_Fortigurn]

I am not sure, as it were, where this entire thread is heading. As it were.

[_Inconceivable]

Here is a link to the original Nauvoo Expositor:

http://solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm

[_gramps]

Gaz wrote:

If you settle down and build a second home, and have a wife and family and have to provide for them and love them and support them, that's hard. The other way is easy. Polygamy was not intended to be easy. And those who entered it did so aware of the personal sacrifice and the conquering od selfishness that it would require. The history shows us that there were tragedies and there were setbacks and there were just as many problems with it as with monogamy, but the outcome overall was that in fact a faithfull number of faithfull children came into these families and they remained the anchor families in the kingdom.

I don't know what a "faithfull [sic] number of faithfull [sic] children actually means, but I will work with what you provide here. I, agree, that there are a lot of faithful families still today left over from polygamous unions. But, Gaz, do you have any idea how many of all those sons and daughters aren't faithful to the Church today?

That would be an interesting study. I grew up in SLC. I don't know how many Youngs or Woodruffs or Taylors, etc. I knew that weren't active at all. Neither were their parents, and so on.

Just one example, anecdotal, to be sure, but still... My great grandfather along with many others in his ward at the time bought property and they all built cabins on the ranch up on the Smith and Morehouse. Let me just give you a few of the names: Woodruff, Lund, Cornwall, Richards, Smith, Spencer, Cardall, and other names you might not know because the daughters involved had married into another family, for example Rogerson (Smith), Lewis (Richards), Preece (Woodruff), etc. When I was growing up and lived there for the summer each year, we were still allowed to have church services at our cabin. Every Sunday one of us would go from cabin to cabin inviting the families to church. No one came but for a few of the Smiths. A lot of the families had completely gone inactive from the Church within two generations. All big name, prominent families in Salt Lake from the beginning.

In my neighborhood, Taylor (inactive), Woolley (inactive), Walker (inactive), Shurtleff (inactive), Matheson (inactive), Young (inactive), Brown (inactive), Hickman (inactive), Wirthlin (inactive), Fife (inactive), Freed (inactive), Cutler (inactive), Gibbs (inactive), Sandberg (inactive), Creer (inactive), and more.

It would be interesting to know just how many of all the children from these polygamous reunions stayed and how many left. I think the number that have left would greatly outnumber those that stayed in. Greatly outnumber. I wonder why they all left?

[_Runtu]

I don't know what a "faithfull [sic] number of faithfull [sic] children actually means, but I will work with what you provide here. I, agree, that there are a lot of faithful families still today left over from polygamous unions. But, Gaz, do you have any idea how many of all those sons and daughters aren't faithful to the Church today?

That would be an interesting study. I grew up in SLC. I don't know how many Youngs or Woodruffs or Taylors, etc. I knew that weren't active at all. Neither were their parents, and so on.

Just one example, anecdotal, to be sure, but still... My great grandfather along with many others in his ward at the time bought property and they all built cabins on the ranch up on the Smith and Morehouse. Let me just give you a few of the names: Woodruff, Lund, Cornwall, Richards, Smith, Spencer, Cardall, and other names you might not know because the daughters involved had married into another family, for example Rogerson (Smith), Lewis (Richards), Preece (Woodruff), etc. When I was growing up and lived there for the summer each year, we were still allowed to have church services at our cabin. Every Sunday one of us would go from cabin to cabin inviting the families to church. No one came but for a few of the Smiths. A lot of the families had completely gone inactive from the Church within two generations. All big name, prominent families in Salt Lake from the beginning.

In my neighborhood, Taylor (inactive), Woolley (inactive), Walker (inactive), Shurtleff (inactive), Matheson (inactive), Young (inactive), Brown (inactive), Hickman (inactive), Wirthlin (inactive), Fife (inactive), Freed (inactive), Cutler (inactive), Gibbs (inactive), Sandberg (inactive), Creer (inactive), and more.

It would be interesting to know just how many of all the children from these polygamous reunions stayed and how many left. I think the number that have left would greatly outnumber those that stayed in. Greatly outnumber. I wonder why they all left?

I'm a descendant of polygamists. All four of my grandparents had polygamous ancestors. There doesn't seem to be an inordinately high rate of activity among any of the lines. But Gaz is right about one thing: it was incredibly difficult to live in polygamous households. Some of the stories in my family history are heartbreaking, while others are just hilarious. But I don't see that polygamy did much to build a core membership.

We Williamses are a decidedly unruly lot, and it's not surprising that the Lord rebuked Frederic*k for not raising his children correctly; otherwise, how do you explain me and all the other inactives and apostates in my extended family? ;-)

[_gramps]

Runtu wrote:

I'm a descendant of polygamists. All four of my grandparents had polygamous ancestors. There doesn't seem to be an inordinately high rate of activity among any of the lines. But Gaz is right about one thing: it was incredibly difficult to live in polygamous households. Some of the stories in my family history are heartbreaking, while others are just hilarious. But I don't see that polygamy did much to build a core membership.

We Williamses are a decidedly unruly lot, and it's not surprising that the Lord rebuked Frederic*k for not raising his children correctly; otherwise, how do you explain me and all the other inactives and apostates in my extended family? ;-)

Heartbreaking and hilarious. That is accurate. I have apostates running throughtout the line. Augustine Spencer, my great, great, great grandfather's brother was the one who signed the affidavit of treason leading to Joseph Smith's imprisonment and eventual murder (heartbreaking). His mother, in her will, left him the old family bathtub when she died (hilarious).

Daniel Spencer, brought home two, or was it three (?), young British girls when he returned from the British mission. He had told their mother that they would have plenty of chances to find a husband. Little did she know, when she finally arrived in the valley, that Daniel had married them both, on the same day he arrived home. He went directly to Brigham Young, had them sealed to him and took them home to meet the family (heartbreaking and hilarious). Needless to say, the mother of the girls was shocked (heartbreaking and hilarious).

[_Runtu]

Heartbreaking and hilarious. That is accurate. I have apostates running throughtout the line. Augustine Spencer, my great, great, great grandfather's brother was the one who signed the affidavit of treason leading to Joseph Smith's imprisonment and eventual murder (heartbreaking). His mother, in her will, left him the old family bathtub when she died (hilarious).

Daniel Spencer, brought home two, or was it three (?), young British girls when he returned from the British mission. He had told their mother that they would have plenty of chances to find a husband. Little did she know, when she finally arrived in the valley, that Daniel had married them both, on the same day he arrived home. He went directly to Brigham Young, had them sealed to him and took them home to meet the family (heartbreaking and hilarious). Needless to say, the mother of the girls was shocked (heartbreaking and hilarious).

FG Williams (my ancestor 7 gens back) was the justice of the peace in Kirtland (as well as the foreman for the Kirtland Temple construction and Joseph Smith's counselor). When the Kirtland Bank collapsed, many people scapegoated Warren Parrish and Warren Cowdery, but Pres. Williams refused to issue an arrest warrant because there was no evidence against them. Undeterred, many irate members went to Joseph, demanding that he do something, so Joseph went to Williams and demanded a warrant. Williams refused, and they got into a rather violent shouting match. According to the family, Joseph returned and apologized.

One of my ancestors had two wives who lived in separate houses on the same property. One did the cooking, and the other did the laundry. One winter the "laundry" wife became ill, so during a blizzard, the husband took a large bag of laundry to the other wife, who told him in no uncertain terms that she did not do the laundry and threw him out into the storm. He became ill with pneumonia and died shortly thereafter.

Another ancestor was 14 when she joined the church in southern Illinois. Her family disowned her, so she walked to Nauvoo, where she was hired as a nanny/housekeeper to a family there. At 15, she became a plural wife, and shortly thereafter, the first wife died, leaving this girl to care for 6 children. She gave birth to several other children, one of whom was my ancestor.

Edit: I double-checked on familysearch.org, and I was right.

Lydia Ann Cook was born in Peoria, Illinois, on 6 August 1830 and was married 6 March 1846 in Winter Quarters, Nebraska. Chauncy Porter's first wife, Amy Sumner, died 7 April 1847 at Winter Quarters.

[_Jason Bourne]

(With the Nauvoo temple in the background)
The Prophets brother Hyrum had a wonderful wife named Jerushah who passed away. He later married Mary Fielding, and one day in close communion with the prophet he said "What will become of me in the life to come? Will I have Jerushah? Will I have Mary? Both?"

What if a women had two husbands? Could she have both? Wonder why it works only for the guy.

That was the beginning for him of understanding there could be a restoration of an ancient order of things, begining with Abraham, that yes, there could be a second or even third wife, and that they would be a blessing in extending ones posterity and fullfilling the role of Fatherhood.

I do not think there is any precedent for LDS polygamy. See more below.

At first Hyrum, and the Prophets wife Emma, and others, were struck with astonishment at this idea. Even though it was Biblical, even though there were precedent, and even though some of them knew that in the Jewish tradition, especially after wars, polygamy was introduced to make possible to single women the privilige of marriage and motherhood. Still the majority of them came from New England and had been taught strict rules of propriety in marriage. This was for them a bitter pill. But it began to unfold in their minds and in their hearts.

The way polygamy was practiced in the Bible seems very different. There was no requirement to do it for exaltation at all. It seems it was more cultural and traditional rather then mandated by God. Richard Abanes, Christian critic of the LDS Church argues in His Book Becoming Gods that biblical polygamy and LDS polygamy were quite different.

[_Runtu]

What if a women had two husbands? Could she have both? Wonder why it works only for the guy.

On a practical level, I would say that it had to do with the difficulty in determining paternity. Absent that, it's just that polygyny reinforces a woman's secondary role.

I do not think there is any precedent for LDS polygamy. See more below.

The way polygamy was practiced in the Bible seems very different. There was no requirement to do it for exaltation at all. It seems it was more cultural and traditional rather then mandated by God. Richard Abanes, Christian critic of the LDS Church argues in His Book Becoming Gods that biblical polygamy and LDS polygamy were quite different.

I'm not a fan of Richard's (I used to debate with him when I was a believer on FAIR), but he's right about this one. LDS polygyny bears very little resemblance to Old Testament Biblical polygyny.