The real LDS abandoned polygamy in 1890, in part for the purposes of appeasing the Union. If, upon admission to the Union in 1896, the State of Utah had been permitted to solemnize legal polygamous marriages, what would Mormons be like today?
Someone told me that they would all be like the Fundamentalist LDS situation in Eldorado.
I don’t think so. I think that these renegade sects are a minority aberration, and not representative of even the LDS of the 1800s.
What do you think?
If polygamy were a mainstream legalized phenomenon, no way would the LDS display the kind of extreme isolationist stance that these hardline FLDS sects do now. In many ways, the Texas compound group reminds me a lot of the Westboro Baptist Church people: they are undoubtedly constantly reminded of how much the outside world abhors them and their lifestyle, that there is no life for them beyond the sect, and that their one and only place is with the sect. This, of course, makes it VERY hard for sect members to leave of their own free will, effectively trapping them in a cult-like environment.
From what I’ve read, the Texas compound had maybe the most extreme “rules”, or whatever, of all of the FLDS settlements. Women and girls being kept illiterate. Girls being married off right after puberty. The alleged marriage bed business in the temples, if true, is especially beyond belief. Certainly this isn’t a custom of mainline LDS members, is it? I mean, I’m Jewish so I can’t speak for another religion obviously, but any Mormon 'Dopers want to share their thoughts on this?
Yeah, the Temple Bed thing made me think “Man, did this group look up all the negative stereotypes about Mormonism & decide to copy them? Next thing you know, we’ll hear about their Avenging Angels/Danites death squads.”
And if polygamy weren’t prohibited, I agree that the Mormons today would still be much more mainstreamed than this group.
Btw, quick hijack- a visit to Donny Osmond’s website reveals a BIG section of audio talks & written Q&As in which Donny will teach you about the LDS faith, and if you gotta learn about the LDS, you really should learn it from Donny. G
Seriously, I do think it’s cool that he does that, even though my disagreements with LDS is well-documented here.
Is it true they did not allow women to learn to read?
-FrL-
One of the guests on Larry King tonight (I think it was the CNN correspondent in Texas) mentioned that a large number of the women/girls escorted from the TX compound could apparently not read or write. They didn’t say whether or not this is believed to be a result of sect practices, but it certainly seems as if the female sect members were brought up not to expect much of a life beyond compulsory motherhood.
I agree. “Mainstreaming” is a good way of looking at it.
I discussed this, very briefly, with a jack Momon girl I used to work with.
She stated that the deal with the ending of Polygamy in the LDS faith was a revelation from God. That is how it is described… that the time of persecution was over, and it would no longer be needed to keep the faith alive.
Not sure if that is doctrine, but still…
IANAM, but I’ve heard that Mormons believe that the U.S. Constitution is an inspired work of God, similar to the way mainstream Christians view the Bible.
And as such, when the Supremes ruled that the Constitution prohibited polygamy, the LDS church viewed that as a vision from God. So the official Mormon view, IIRC, is not that they were forced to give up polygamy, but they did so because they believe that God said to stop the practice…
I always wondered what the big concern was about plural marriage. If they’re consenting adults, why not? But I guess this latest news shows the potential danger.
Historically, before medical advances, people didn’t live that long. In classical Rome, 20-30 was the expectancy. In 1940, before antibiotics were widely available, life expectancy was about 40. So people married early, maybe at puberty, because if they were going to raise a family they better get started early. Now that life expectancy is 70+ we aren’t in the same kind of hurry but these “Mormons” are perpetuating the old practice for their own pervy reasons.
BTW I worked with a (converted) Muslim who told me that the Koran allows for multiple marriages. She said if her husband wanted another wife, he’d have to give her the same things she had. E.g. she drove a Mercedes…he’d have to buy one for the second wife as well. She lived in a big house…ditto for the second wife. A Muslim I dated confirmed this.
Yeah, I always had the same sort of feelings, i.e. whatever floats your boat. But I think the truly abhorrent thing here is that these men can’t even freaking wait until the girl turns 18 and apparently can’t even wait until the actual wedding night to “consummate” the deal. I can’t think of anything much ickier than getting it on in a place of worship, I mean, come on. To me that doesn’t seem like anything other than a particular faith system twisted and wrangled over the years to condone pedophilia and abuse.
Well, not quite. Mormons do believe that the Constitution and so on were inspired (though not scripture). They were not happy about the polygamy ban and fought it for some time. Then in 1890, the prophet Wilford Woodruff received a revelation to stop. I’ll get you a cite after I come back from my walk which I’m late for right now.
Mormon polygamists were originally very different from the FLDS; only a small minority practiced it, it wasn’t secret (which IMO is a lot of how it got so awful), it wasn’t forced, and women’s education was highly valued in pioneer Utah. Mormon feminists considered the right to practice polygamy to be a feminist principle. Ack, more later.
The only way to keep something as sinister what they did going is through total subjugation and oppression.
Hello again. OK, so about the Constitution and Mormons. While we do believe that the founding of a country based upon principles of freedom was inspired, that does not mean that we look at the Constitution as scripture or as the US government as a body that can do no wrong. (LDS scripture is the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. No government documents included.) By the 1840’s, Mormons were pretty disenchanted with the US government.
For example, Joseph Smith went to visit Martin van Buren in Washington in order to ask for his help in dealing with the unlawful persecution Mormons were suffering. Van Buren told him that his cause was just, but that if he (van Buren) upheld the law in this matter, he would not be re-elected. Many other incidents convinced most Mormons that the American government couldn’t be trusted, so they were happy to get away to the Utah territory.
As far as I have ever been able to figure out from my reading, women in early Utah were in fact rather better off than their counterparts back East. Women had the vote (which they gave up for statehood in 1896), they were treated as adults (instead of children or property), education was very important, and they accomplished amazing things. OK, I’m a little biased here, as reading about these incredible women has always been a special hobby of mine–however, just FYI I have no pioneer ancestors myself. But seriously, it makes fascinating reading–women were doing most of the medical work, writing for publications, working with mainstream feminists, raising silk and cotton and wheat, all kinds of things.
Women at that time frequently handled everything–families, farms and businesses–without their husbands, since the men were often gone for long periods on missions. Once polygamy was outlawed, the polygamous husbands were often in hiding for months at a time.
Polygamy in early Utah was conducted along very different lines than it is in the FLDS compounds. A man could not just go out and marry whoever–he had to get permission from leaders, who were supposed to make sure he was a good man. The first wife (and any others) had to give permission. It was all done out in the open, it was voluntary, and it was a minority practice–most people were monogamous and young men weren’t thrown out. Of course not everyone was happy, and there were abuses, just as there are in regular marriage (and I think polygamy is much harder)–but it wasn’t like what the modern polygamists have done.
The document that finally officially ended polygamy was called the Manifesto. Sections from it are found in the Offical Declaration 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants. It’s true that a few marriages were still contracted even after this, but that was pretty much the end.
Hope that helps. I don’t believe that if polygamy hadn’t been outlawed, it would have been like it is now. IMO the generations of secrecy and isolationism have done a lot to make these groups the abusive, coercive societies they are today. And not all of them are like the FLDS anyway–there are a bunch of splinter groups and they vary a lot. Some of them look like ordinary people with ordinary jobs who just happen to have a husband and 3 other wives at home. I don’t know much about them though–I don’t know any more than you do about modern polygamous groups.
Dangit, how did that double post happen?
Don’t know if it has come up in discussion, but the FLDS have a good foothold in Bountiful, British Columbia. Same people involved, Warren Jeffs, etc., girls and women moved back and forth across the border to the US.
Our attorney general has been reluctant to deal with this, but I think we will see some action in the next year or so.
One thing that absolutely sticks in my craw is that the school in Bountiful gets funding from our government under the policy that giving some money to private schools saves the provincial department of education a lot of money.
Dangermom, why is D&C 132 still canon, then? It appears to me that the FLDS are simply living all the scriptures as revealed to Joseph Smith, but the mainstream LDS simply ignore that one and pretend it doesn’t exist.
I can’t address the OP; I have trouble with hypthetical what ifs. Too many variables for me to speculate.
Why is it canon? Because it’s the revelation ordering Temple marriage. That’s explained quite well in the italic note at the top of the page. It’s also quite obvious that the LDS are not pretending it doesn’t exist or are ignoring it: we still have temple marriages where a husband and a wife are sealed “for time and eternity.” What we don’t have is polygamy.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is following the revelations, to include that given in Official Declaration 1. Remember, if you will, that the LDS believe in continuing revelation and that Joseph Smith has had successors as president of the church.
Hey, that’s a good question. It’s still in there because, at the very least, it was a revelation at the time and we don’t want to start taking things out. It was a commandment that was rescinded by the Manifesto, which is also in the D&C.
Mainstream Mormons see polygamy as an optional commandment–that is, strict monogamy is the normal, default way to live, and polygamy is only OK when God gives a specific commandment for it. Polygamy must be practiced in a particular way, under God’s command, for it to be all right–the rest of the time it’s not. It’s a special circumstance which God can command or take away.
Here is a relevant passage from the Book of Mormon (in Jacob):
IOW, polygamy is not OK unless God says you should do it.
Mormons believe in ongoing revelation–while God does not change, humanity’s circumstances do, and so we need to get new instruction and revelation that is specific to our time. Another clear example of this is the Word of Wisdom, our dietary law–it is a commandment for our time and will not last forever (nor was it in force before). This is why we consider a living prophet to be so necessary; what was important for early Christians or Mormon pioneer or ancient Jews may not be exactly what we are supposed to do. Thus the current prophet’s word always supersedes former revelation, and Wilford Woodruff could legitimately receive a commandment that reversed a commandment which Joseph Smith received, and which is still contained in scripture.
Huh.
I had no idea that God gives optional commandments. Isn’t that an oxymoron? If it’s a commandment… how can it be optional?
Has God ever offered revelation that cancels out any of the Ten Commandments? I mean, is it okay now to dishonor my mother and father?
Thanks for your responses! Very interesting.
Um, the Supreme Court did no such thing. Nothing in the United States Constitution prohibits polygamy (marriage isn’t even mentioned). The Constitution does however give Conress complete authority to legislate and govern any part of the US that isn’t a state (ie the territories and DC). Congress used this power to outlaw polygame in the territories. One of the reasons why it took so long for Utah to become a state was that once it did it could uses it’s sovereignty to legalize plural marriage (though no other state need recognize it).
Actually while Utah Territory gave women the right to vote in 1870 Congress overode the territorial legislature in 1887 and stripped them of the franchise. There were few non-Mormon women living in Utah then; restricting the franchise to men weaked Mormon political influence and increased that of non-Mormon men. The first law passed after statehood was granted in 1896 was restoring women’s suffrage.