Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Roy, that is my understanding as well. I went to the Brian Hales book signing a few weeks ago, and someone else said that 85% of ethnic groups practice polygamy. But I’d be curious what percent of the world’s population practice polygamy. My guess is that it is a whole lot less.
I just discussed this in my post on Priestesses: http://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/24/mormon-doctrine-priestesses/ When priesthood ordinances are typically performed outside the temple (blessing the sick, confirmation, ordination, etc), men pronounce that the blessing/ordination is performed “by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood.” However, in the temple, the ordination is performed by one “having authority.” The phrase “Melchizedek priesthood” is specifically absent. Furthermore, the proper name of the temple garments that both men and women wear are called “the garment of the holy priesthood” and during the endowment, men and women are clothed in the robes of the holy priesthood, and given the right to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. It is clear that men hold the priesthood in the temple, but if women don’t hold the priesthood, why are they wearing the garment of the holy priesthood? Why are women wearing the robes of the holy priesthood? Why are women told in the temple that they are prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood? (Go listen for these phrases if you are not familiar with them.) It would seem my mission president disagrees with Elder McConkie that “Women do not have the priesthood conferred upon them…” I’m pretty sure that female temple workers perform the same initiatory ordinance (substituting female pronouns as necessary) using the same wording and “having authority” to perform the ordinance. If they do not hold the priesthood, under what authority are they performing the ordinance?
There are 4 podcasts with Brian Hales available on Mormon Stories. He gives a pretty interesting, conservative position on polygamy, and he admits that much of the information is a bit weird. I highly recommend the interviews if you have a few hours. Brian is an interesting speaker. I just listened to “A Thoughtful Faith”. They interviewed Bruce’s nephew, James. It was a fascination interview and I learned some interesting tidbits: (1) McConkie’s are democrats. (2) McConkies are all lawyers. (3) James said he disagreed with Bruce on the status of blacks pre-1978. James said he worked in Senator Gunn McKay’s office and Gunn was for civil rights. James had some really progressive things to say. I highly recommend the interview. (Perhaps I may transcribe it this summer when I have more time–it was that good.) Roy, I absolutely agree that enforcement of the WoW ebbed and flowed between about 1840-1920s. But I thought it was quite interesting that the first decade did seem quite similar to our interpretation. I also agree that moving the heading into the scriptures was an interesting move. Regarding polyandry, Brian Hales has just put out 3 books on the subject of polygamy and gets to the source documents. He claims that of the 14 women married to other men, 11 were “eternity only” sealings (the husbands were non-members), and therefore were not sexual in nature. I think he believes the other 3 were were non-sexual relationships (LDS husbands), but I have to double check that. There was a BYU Studies article and they said that the 1830s definition of the WoW was very similar to ours: http://mormonheretic.org/2012/05/20/word-of-wisdom-in-first-decade/ It is important to remember that when it was published in 1958, Elder Mark E Peterson found over 1000 errors in Mormon Doctrine. I’ve recently begun a series on it and so far have discussed Blacks: http://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/13/mormon-doctrine-blacks/ http://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/17/mormon-doctrine-catholicism/ Yes, I watched it at a film festival and enjoyed it. I reviewed it: http://mormonheretic.org/2012/06/18/the-religious-test-and-cleanflix/ No, I was specifically referring to Sarah Pratt and Joseph Smith. As I wrote the post, I looked it up in Rough Stone Rolling, pages 466-468. Bushman discusses the back and forth accusations between Bennett and Smith, each accusing the other of a sexual relationship with Sarah. In the midst of the back and forth allegations, Joseph recommended Orson divorce Sarah. Bushman writes “Orson, still loyal to his wife, demurred. He was reinstated as an apostle, and that afternoon both he and Sarah were rebaptized in the Mississippi. By the time Orson left Nauvoo in 1846, he had taken four additional wives.” This bit of info seems to lead one to believe Orson and Sarah supported Joseph. But it’s not that simple. Bushman also says that Sarah “forty years later, after Orson’s death, and after she had left the Church, she told a story that substantially supported Bennett against Joseph.” The footnote references the Van Wagoner book on polygamy.
When I read
Rough Stone Rollingthe first time (years ago), I (mis)remembered (to quote Roger Clemens) the part that Joseph had sent Orson on a mission and then married Sarah. Upon reading it yesterday, Bushman never states that Joseph married Sarah, and in fact Bushman leaves the whole relationship and accusations pretty ambiguous. Now (StayLDS) Orson, I can understand your reaction completely. This episode has never sat well with me. John C. Bennett has often been assailed by the LDS as an unreliable witness, and he is. I remember going to an MHA conference with Hales, Todd Compton, and Lawrence Foster. Foster proclaimed that despite Bennett’s poor reputation, he was telling the truth sometimes. Foster argued that we must not throw out all of Bennett’s testimony, and we should accept the testimony that is reliable. I agree. Without reading what Hales has said, I don’t have enough evidence to say one way or the other. I am just reporting what Hales said. Hales could be right or wrong. To Hales’ credit, he got Todd Compton to endorse his book with these words:
Quote:“Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, the first thorough treatment of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages written by a conservative Mormon scholar, is a landmark in the historiography of Mormon polygamy. While I disagree with some of Hales’s conclusions, I admire his willingness to confront difficult topics and the depth of his research. This impressive work furthers the ongoing dialogue in the Mormon historical community on a fascinating and challenging aspect of the life and teachings of Mormonism’s founding prophet.” –Todd M. Compton, author of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
I will also add that Hales got Lawrence Foster (a non-Mormon) to endorse his book with these words:
Quote:“Brian Hales is an exceptionally thorough, meticulous, and evenhanded researcher and assessor of Joseph Smith’s complex and controversial polygamous practices and the theological rationale that supported them. His path-breaking and indispensable three-volume study provides the most comprehensive documentation and assessment yet available of the extant evidence on the topic, even though Hales’s fellow scholars of Joseph Smith’s polygamy may not always find persuasive the ways in which he interprets and contextualizes his evidence.” –Lawrence Foster, author of Religion and Sexuality
Something tells me that Compton and Foster probably don’t agree with Hales on this point either.
I attended a book signing Saturday night in Orem with Brian Hales and Don Bradley. I asked him specifically about Sarah Pratt (which I mentioned earlier in the thread), and Hales claims that Sarah was NOT sealed to Joseph, but rather had a sexual relationship with John C. Bennett. He also said 11 of the 14 polyandrous sealings were “eternity only” sealings to women whose husbands were not LDS. Only 3 women had LDS husbands, and he thinks at least 2 were non-sexual. I wish I had taken notes on the other one, because I can’t remember what he said in regards to that. I just posted about it on my blog: http://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/10/brian-hales-and-don-bradley-discuss-polygamy/ Quote:What IS the Current Church Position on Polygamy?
After the 2013 release, it appears the answer to this question is officially
Quote:The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7-8 and Jacob 2:27, 30).
See my latest post at W&T or my blog up tomorrow.
This post won a Wheaties award for best historical and doctrinal post this year. It details the history of tithing: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html I’ve read Origins of Power, and parts of Extensions of Power. I just purchased it myself. Chapter 6 is available at the Signature Books website: http://signaturebooks.com/2010/10/excerpt-extensions-of-power/ GBSmith, I started reading Hales article but haven’t finished it. Let me tell you some of my first impressions. Hales said, Quote:So some observations. It’s kind of weird that a woman would be married to an active LDS but be sealed to Joseph Smith for an eternal marriage. And Joseph could be criticized that he was insensitive to those ten husbands, but none of them ever complained. We have no complaints from any of them.
Well, from my memory, Orson Pratt did complain, especially at first. While Orson eventually came around and embraced polygamy, I don’t think I agree with that statement.
Regarding some of the dates, Hales clearly states that he thinks Compton’s dates are wrong, but it sounds like Compton stands by his dates. I haven’t read Compton yet, so I can’t weigh in on that particular dispute.
I will say this regarding Hales. In the link I posted earlier about types of polygamy and surrogate parenthood, there is a really strange story of a non-Mormon couple (the Richardsons) driving through Utah that discusses a “Convenience marriage” (Kathryn Daines’ term, not mine.) While in SLC, the Richardsons converted. They had 2 children (girls I believe), and something happened to the husband so that he could not father children anymore. All the Mormons told the wife that she should leave her husband and get another because having children was seen as so important to salvation. Not wanting to divorce on that basis alone, they went to Brigham Young to ask his opinion. Young came up with a novel solution. He would have them temporarily divorce, the wife would marry a good mormon man, have a few children, then divorce and remarry as original. (This is a form of natural insemination!) Two new boys were born from the arrangement, were called by the Richardsons name and raised as his own in a sort of levirate marriage as mentioned in the Book of Matthew. This story is told in greater detail in “More Wives than One” by BYU professor Kathryn Daines, and I quoted her words in my blog post. In a way, this could be considered a polyandrous marriage. Daines said she hadn’t found any divorce decrees, and said it was a family story. Anyway, these 2 boys were sealed to the “sterile” father.
At Sunstone, I asked Hales specifically about this story, and he was very familiar with it. Hales said that he had found actual divorce papers, and he was convinced that the 2 divorces were legal and binding, and Sister Richardson had consecutive, not concurrent, sexual relations with the 2 men. Because of that, he says it is not a polyandrous marriage. From a technical point of view, I agree with Hales. But I will say that a temporary divorce with the intention to remarry later is really odd, and I’d call it a polyandrous marriage, even though the sexual relations were consecutive, not concurrent. To me, Hales is arguing a technical point; while technically correct, for all intents and purposes, I’d call it polyandrous. The whole temporary marriage and divorce just doesn’t sit well with me.
As far as legal divorce papers, well, as mentioned previously, Mormons didn’t care that they were breaking marriage laws. Utah had the most liberal divorce laws in the U.S. back in the day. Part of the anti-polygamy crusades included more stringest divorce laws in Utah. So the argument that Hales said he found legal divorce papers is interesting if true, but Mormons didn’t particularly care about whether a divorce was legal. (I wonder if the document Hales found is a Hoffman forgery!
😆 )One of the reasons Parley P. Pratt was killed was because he married a southern man’s wife. Because divorces were so easy in Utah (all you had to do was claim that you would move to Utah, and Utah would grant the divorce), the divorce wasn’t recognized as legal in Arkansas. That’s why the woman’s husband got so angry and murdered Parley. So I don’t necessarily find Hales argument regarding the Richardsons as compelling. I’d have to look more at his paper and books to see if I agree with him on JS polyandrous relations.
