NPR calls Church on its claim that polygamy stopped in 1890

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Polygamy also survives in Mormon theology, in the Mormon concept of the afterlife, according to Richard Bushman, a Mormon and visiting professor in Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University in California.

"A man can be sealed [in eternal marriage] to two women if one of them dies and he marries again," Bushman explains. "There's sort of an implicit heavenly plural marriage that is still authorized and acknowledged. So at the very best we're caught in kind of an ambiguous situation, and people probably pick that up."

Kudos to Bushman for acknowledging this ongoing, albeit limited, practice of a form of polygamy in the modern LDS Church (of course, it's a bit more complicated than Bushman reveals: in addition to a widower, a civilly divorced man (whose sealing to his ex-wife remains) can also be sealed to a second living woman; in contrast, a living woman (widowed or civilly divorced) cannot be sealed to more than one man at any given time).

Just to illustrate how misunderstood this policy is, even by today's members, there's a thread going on right now over at MADB about the justification for Joseph Smith's polyandry. A sweet widow named "Maidservant" made this post:

Any justification it needs is a property of point of view (a variety of possibilities), not reality.

I am a wife. I am sealed to my husband. I am a widow. Any man who marries me will be marrying another man's wife. I hope it happens! Both men would need to share. I don't find anything sinister, immoral, repulsive or shocking in this -- just a willingness for some sacrifice.

Clearly this kindly sister does not realize there will be no "sharing" among men for the same woman in the hereafter -- she will go to her 1st husband, and that's it.

When challenged by another poster about his, "Maidservant" responded:

Polyandry is a very interesting thing that happened, does happen, and will be the state of some in the eternities, I believe. So it's definitely worth bringing up and exploring.

My husband is living, by the way. He's just not here with me. He's on the other side of the veil. We're separated, but he's living. In the eternities, we will all be living. Him, me and hopefullly husband number two.

The "hopefully" part refers to her desire to marry again (she's not yet found No. 2). Again, she still seems to think that a woman can have 2 eternal husbands in the hereafter. Sorry, but only the men get to practice polygamy for enternity. ;)

[_beastie]

I found this an interesting statement from maidservant:

God is the one who gives morality. What God asks of us, what God gives to us . . . that is moral. Is there another issue other than morality with polyandry that needs a justification? There may be. I can actually think of at least one other.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=36468

I discussed this same slippery slope with wade on this board. If God orders adult males to start having sex with juvenile males, will it, too, be "moral"? This is the same thinking that leads people to kill for god.

[_harmony]

I found this an interesting statement from maidservant:

God is the one who gives morality. What God asks of us, what God gives to us . . . that is moral. Is there another issue other than morality with polyandry that needs a justification? There may be. I can actually think of at least one other.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=36468

I discussed this same slippery slope with wade on this board. If God orders adult males to start having sex with juvenile males, will it, too, be "moral"? This is the same thinking that leads people to kill for god.

Maidservant just handed her eternal salvation over to a man, not God. As soon as anyone starts following men, they jeopardize their entire existence. With personal revelation and a personal relationship with God at least we can't blame anyone but ourselves. The lack of personal responsibility is just appalling.

[_Seven]

Polygamy also survives in Mormon theology, in the Mormon concept of the afterlife, according to Richard Bushman, a Mormon and visiting professor in Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University in California.

"A man can be sealed [in eternal marriage] to two women if one of them dies and he marries again," Bushman explains. "There's sort of an implicit heavenly plural marriage that is still authorized and acknowledged. So at the very best we're caught in kind of an ambiguous situation, and people probably pick that up."

Kudos to Bushman for acknowledging this ongoing, albeit limited, practice of a form of polygamy in the modern LDS Church (of course, it's a bit more complicated than Bushman reveals: in addition to a widower, a civilly divorced man (whose sealing to his ex-wife remains) can also be sealed to a second living woman; in contrast, a living woman (widowed or civilly divorced) cannot be sealed to more than one man at any given time).

Just to illustrate how misunderstood this policy is, even by today's members, there's a thread going on right now over at MADB about the justification for Joseph Smith's polyandry. A sweet widow named "Maidservant" made this post:

Any justification it needs is a property of point of view (a variety of possibilities), not reality.

I am a wife. I am sealed to my husband. I am a widow. Any man who marries me will be marrying another man's wife. I hope it happens! Both men would need to share. I don't find anything sinister, immoral, repulsive or shocking in this -- just a willingness for some sacrifice.

Clearly this kindly sister does not realize there will be no "sharing" among men for the same woman in the hereafter -- she will go to her 1st husband, and that's it.

When challenged by another poster about his, "Maidservant" responded:

Polyandry is a very interesting thing that happened, does happen, and will be the state of some in the eternities, I believe. So it's definitely worth bringing up and exploring.

My husband is living, by the way. He's just not here with me. He's on the other side of the veil. We're separated, but he's living. In the eternities, we will all be living. Him, me and hopefullly husband number two.

The "hopefully" part refers to her desire to marry again (she's not yet found No. 2). Again, she still seems to think that a woman can have 2 eternal husbands in the hereafter. Sorry, but only the men get to practice polygamy for enternity. ;)

I give kudos to Bushman as well.

Another often misunderstood part of polyandry is the reason for it. The women were only married to two men at once because they could not openly live plural marriage in Nauvoo with Joseph Smith. Their civil marriages were no longer valid in Mormon eyes. Polyandry was only a temporary necessity to protect those involved until safely isolated in Utah from persecution. For example, Henry Jacobs was told to move on and find a new wife once Brigham Young was able to practice polygamy openly.

"Maidservant" needs to read "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton.

[_Jason Bourne]

You seriously cannot see the difference between claiming that a "manifesto" dispensed with polyamy and saying that "some church members folowed the practice" until it was "officially stopped" in "1890"? There is no disputing what the manifesto said, and NPR points out what it said, but then says that the Church is "not as clean as Mormon leaders suggest" -- hmmm, wonder what Mormon leaders are suggesting? Possibly that it was "officially stopped" in "1890"? Again, duh. You simply cannot handle the fact that the obvious reality has been pointed out not only by NPR, but the well regarded Shipps and Bushman. Deal with it.

I've already dealt with it several times. The Church was indeed waiting to see how the constitutionality of banning plural marriage would play out. Also, can you tell me where most plural marriages after 1890 were performed? Honestly, over the time period in question, a 14 year wind down does not seem unreasonable to me at all. Not volunteering the information while also not making it inaccessible is not unreasonable either seeing as how we haven't practiced plural marriage like that for many years.

I completely understand why it took time to end plural marriage. That is not the complaint. THe complaint is the Church portrays it today as if in 1890 the owrd was given to stop and since that time is has stopped, which is not true. This is the issue. It is a here and now presentation of it. Also it is not true that the Church has nothing to do with plural marriage today. It is still doctrinal and still applicable for the eternities.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

You seriously cannot see the difference between claiming that a "manifesto" dispensed with polyamy and saying that "some church members folowed the practice" until it was "officially stopped" in "1890"? There is no disputing what the manifesto said, and NPR points out what it said, but then says that the Church is "not as clean as Mormon leaders suggest" -- hmmm, wonder what Mormon leaders are suggesting? Possibly that it was "officially stopped" in "1890"? Again, duh. You simply cannot handle the fact that the obvious reality has been pointed out not only by NPR, but the well regarded Shipps and Bushman. Deal with it.

I've already dealt with it several times. The Church was indeed waiting to see how the constitutionality of banning plural marriage would play out. Also, can you tell me where most plural marriages after 1890 were performed? Honestly, over the time period in question, a 14 year wind down does not seem unreasonable to me at all. Not volunteering the information while also not making it inaccessible is not unreasonable either seeing as how we haven't practiced plural marriage like that for many years.

I completely understand why it took time to end plural marriage. That is not the complaint. THe complaint is the Church portrays it today as if in 1890 the owrd was given to stop and since that time is has stopped, which is not true. This is the issue. It is a here and now presentation of it. Also it is not true that the Church has nothing to do with plural marriage today. It is still doctrinal and still applicable for the eternities.

and you are still part of this.

That is the sad reality that you face.

[_Jason Bourne]

[/quote]and you are still part of this.

That is the sad reality that you face.[/quote]

No religion is perfect. I believe in God still, and Jesus Christ. And the LDS Church still works well for me on most counts. I am disappointed it has turned out to not be exactly what I always thought it was but I have reached a point where I am mostly ok with that. It works for me. Too bad you can't make it work for you. But I don't beat you up about it accept when you act like an ass about it, which is far too often.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

No religion is perfect. I believe in God still, and Jesus Christ. And the LDS Church still works well for me on most counts. I am disappointed it has turned out to not be exactly what I always thought it was but I have reached a point where I am mostly ok with that. It works for me. Too bad you can't make it work for you. But I don't beat you up about it accept when you act like an ass about it, which is far too often.

You are a practicing member of a church which claims it is the perfect religion because it is the only true church of God.

With your above statement, will you declare LDS is not the only true church on earth?

[_Mercury]

So by this logic, because the KKK does not (that we know of) conduct lynchings we are to assume they are the authority on the practice.

Mormonism has no legitimacy in the modern dialog between rational parties.

They have gotten by lately through lying boldfaced into the faces of 60 minutes and the other ilk they communicate with through press releases and grandiose generalizations.

[_Jason Bourne]

You are a practicing member of a church which claims it is the perfect religion because it is the only true church of God.

With your above statement, will you declare LDS is not the only true church on earth?

I think I have already stated many times on this board that I do not believe there is such a thing as a one and only true church. For me thought the LDS is the most true. Yes I know the hardliner LDSers here will jump down my throat just as the hard line ex LDSers will. So let it be written. So let it be done.