Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ray, concerning the “legal and lawful” words in the sealing ordinance, I believe that was added sometime after the 1890 manifesto. Prior to that, the church didn’t care that polygamist marriages weren’t legal or lawful. But following the manifesto, the words were added to discourage polygamist marriages (though they obviously continued for a couple more decades.) I don’t know when those specific words were added, I’d have to do some research. There is an interesting exchange in the book
Development of LDS Temple Worship.Mormons weren’t fans of “legal and lawful” marriages. I wrote about it in this link: http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/03/06/development-of-lds-temple-worship/ Quote:Since I’m curious about the time period relating to the Manifesto, I had to look for information around 1890. Some of these quotes are hard to understand without the footnotes. For example, here is the quote from a letter from President Wilford Woodruff to William H. Seegmiller, Sept 26, 1890 that left me scratching my head until I read the footnote.
Elder H. S. Palmer of Freemont [Utah] writes to us that you have refused to give him a recommend to the House of the Lord because at his late trial he promised to obey the law.
The footnote states,
Apparently Seegmiller thought LDS people should stand firm in violating the law against polygamy. Notice that President Woodruff doesn’t support Palmer’s decision to obey the law; rather he finds the sin of obedience in this case to be venial rather than fatal.
Continuing with the quote from the letter,
If this is the only reason you have for withholding his recommend, and if he is otherwise in good standing in the Church, and were it not for this action of his you could freely recommend him, we do not think it advisable for that reason alone to withhold from him the privileges of the temple.
Official Declaration 1 was released just 2 days before this letter. Wilford Woodruff had a vision on Sept 23, 1891. The following day, the press release was drafted and printed in our current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.
I think it is important to point out that Brigham Young era polygamy and Joseph Smith era polygamy are not the same. It would be more accurate to state that under Brigham Young, marriages often were to widows and the poor, so that characterization may not be so far off concerning the Brigham Young era. I talked about different types of polygamist marriages under Brigham Young: see http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/11/08/surrogate-parenthoodtypes-of-polygamist-marriages-daynes-part-3/ Reflexzero, I’m not sure I understand your question about sealing ordinances being the same or different over time. I’d say they were the same. What differences might you expect?
Outofstep, Joseph sent Orson Pratt on a mission, and then married Orson’s wife without Orson’s knowledge. When Orson returned, I believe he was disfellowshipped from the apostleship for a time because he was unhappy. I believe that Orson and his wife later divorced, but Orson returned to the quorum, and his seniority was reduced, leading to Brigham Young being prophet instead of Orson. Orson eventually became a big proponent of polygamy, but he wasn’t a fan at first. Orson also had some big theological arguments on a variety of issues, and it seems that the church embraces much of Orson’s theology over Brigham Young’s theology (especially concerning Adam-God, to name one example.)
I will have to read that article when I have more time. I will say that I do know Brian Hales, and have talked to him on a few occasions. He gives very interesting and entertaining presentations. I think he has an interesting perspective on things, and I really do need to look at his work more deeply. However, I do think that he holds a minority view regarding sexual polyandry. I have seen him debate Todd Compton, and they definitely see this issue from different points of view. The period of 1857 was known as “the Mormon Reformation”. Jedidiah Grant was in the First Presidency and led a personal crusade to improve the spirituality of all the Mormons in Utah. Grant died soon after, but he really tried to make Mormons more spiritual and was quite heavy handed in his zeal. Hawk, Maybe I’ll have to read that book again. I know you and others loved it. I just felt uncomfortable reading a book that so openly referenced the temple ceremony. Maybe I’ll have to give it a second chance.
Here’s what Richard Bushman said about Quinn’s book: Quote:John Dehlin, “How much of this misunderstanding about magic do we owe to Michael Quinn do you think, or is he just one of many? Shall we sort of thank him for the research he did to help us really understand this better?”
Bushman, “Well the basic research was done before Michael Quinn by scholars of European culture and American culture. Keith Thomas’s Religion and the Decline of Magic is the key turning book, and then other books written about the hermetic tradition in the Renaissance. Michael built on that, I suppose maybe many Latter-day Saints learned nothing about magic until they came to Michael. The trouble is his book doesn’t really put things in balance. What it does is it just piles it higher and deeper and gets this huge material, collects it all and assumes that this vast quantity of lore which developed over the centuries was in the minds of everyone who ever went out and searched for buried treasure. So it kind of leads your astray at the same time that it opens up a new world to you, so I think it is a fabulous work of scholarship, ingenious I must say, but I mean It’s really overblown in so many ways.”
JD, “Kind of like the dynamic about the fascination with Indians and trying to fit that back.”
Bushman, “Yeah, exactly. You pile it all up and think everybody in the world was just totally absorbed in magic.”
Thanks for the shout out Ray. It seems like someone else asked me about the history of temple recommends, but I don’t have anything good off the top of my head. I did a post on the Development of Temple Worship, and found this interesting exchange, so this shows that recommends go back to at least 1890. See http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/03/06/development-of-lds-temple-worship/ Quote:Since I’m curious about the time period relating to the Manifesto, I had to look for information around 1890. Some of these quotes are hard to understand without the footnotes. For example, here is the quote from a letter from President Wilford Woodruff to William H. Seegmiller, Sept 26, 1890 that left me scratching my head until I read the footnote.
Elder H. S. Palmer of Freemont [Utah] writes to us that you have refused to give him a recommend to the House of the Lord because at his late trial he promised to obey the law.
The footnote states,
Apparently Seegmiller thought LDS people should stand firm in violating the law against polygamy. Notice that President Woodruff doesn’t support Palmer’s decision to obey the law; rather he finds the sin of obedience in this case to be venial rather than fatal.
Continuing with the quote from the letter,
If this is the only reason you have for withholding his recommend, and if he is otherwise in good standing in the Church, and were it not for this action of his you could freely recommend him, we do not think it advisable for that reason alone to withhold from him the privileges of the temple.
Official Declaration 1 was released just 2 days before this letter. Wilford Woodruff had a vision on Sept 23, 1891. The following day, the press release was drafted and printed in our current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.
On the other hand, non-members could enter the Kirtland Temple, and Joseph even charged admission to see the mummies he purchased (along with the Book of Abraham.) The mummies were on display in the Kirtland Temple, and there were dances in the Nauvoo Temple: See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/01/30/kirtland-temple-history-and-worship/ Quote:JL, “Now I think that one thing that’s really key about the temple is, and we sort of hinted at this, you know today in the Salt Lake branch of the church, after a temple is dedicated, it is sealed off to all but the most dedicated who have a temple recommend. That was never the case with Kirtland. Kirtland, as you mentioned, was always sort of an open house of worship and other function, right?”
Barbara Walden, “That’s right. It was intended to be the center of community life. As I mentioned, they had a high school that met up on the third floor. There are great accounts of them inviting ministers of other churches to use the pulpits to preach. On one account of a Unitarian minister, taking advantage of that and preaching from the pulpit. I think it was a hope for the Latter-day Saints that if we invite you into our house of worship to allow you to preach, perhaps you too would allow us into your house of worship to preach as well. It’s almost the beginning of some ecumenical work there in Kirtland.
They were also giving tours of the temple, I should point that out. Joseph Smith Sr, was a pretty good guide. Warren Parrish was another tour guide at the Kirtland Temple. So they’re recognizing that the building is kind of a curiosity if you will, and people were dying to get inside to take a look. So there is evidence that they were charging admission for the tours, and one of the highlights of the tours–for one man he paid to go back a second time–was to see the mummies that were on exhibit on the third floor.
John Larsen: “Later those were in somebody’s basement, but they were at the Kirtland Temple, right?
BW, “They were up on the third floor, yes. There were accounts of them on exhibit over at Joseph and Emma Smith’s house, and Frederick Granger’s house. It seems like they have their own tour of the Kirtland area as well.”
[chuckles]
JL, “I do know that in the Nauvoo Temple, Brigham liked to dance, so they would clear the floors and do dances. Were there any more secular activities like that in Kirtland?”
BW, “I can’t say that we ever had a dance in Kirtland in the 1830′s.”
John Hamer, “There’s later accounts of dances on the second floor.”
BW, “That’s true.”
I saw this comment on BCC today, and it made me chuckle, because I often feel the same way. Quote:Chris H. Says:
January 21, 2013 at 4:50 pm
BTW, the best meeting during the third hour of the block is me in the foyer on my iOS device.
As for Emma’s estrangement from Brigham Young, well, it’s a pretty complicated story. I typed up a transcript of John Hamer’s view of the Succession Crisis, and I’d like to quote the relevant parts here to better understand Emma’s estrangement from the LDS. Following the succession crisis, there were several people vying for leadership of the church. The people with the “best” claims were (1) Sidney Rigdon, (2) William Marks, (3) Brigham Young, (4) James Strang, and eventually (5) JS III. There were others, but I’m going to limit discussion to these men, because they had the widest following. I’ll ignore Strang for this conversation, but according to John Hamer, Quote:“So who’s going to be the leader? Obviously it can’t be Joseph Smith III, he’s just a little kid. It’s not going to be Emma or anybody in the—immediately after. You know, she’s a woman, it’s that kind of time period. Hyrum is dead. Samuel Smith also dies very soon. The only living Smith left therefore an adulthood male is William Smith who is by far the most unsteady Smith. People don’t like William. He stays off in the east anyway because his wife is sick, so he’s gone for an entire year. So outside of the family in the church structure, what’s going to happen?
The options are the First Presidency; essentially they’ve lost key members recently, so William Law has been, you know he’s part of this whole reform movement that actually—he starts the Nauvoo Expositor, and he actually precipitates the entire martyrdom and everything like that that happens. So he is out of the church, but Sidney Rigdon is still there, so that’s an option, Sidney Rigdon. The other two options then, the two leading quorums are the High Council, the Presiding High Council, and previously, earlier in Mormon history, the High Council had been very important ruling body, especially in Far West, especially in the Missouri period, just right before Nauvoo.
…
“So what happens is Emma and some of the people who agree with her, think that the head of the High Council should be the new head of the church, William Marks. But William Marks believes legally that Sidney Rigdon has the best claim, so he sides with Rigdon in the First Presidency as being the successor, so that essentially nullifies Marks’ claim, because it puts it with Rigdon, so that’s why it comes down to essentially Rigdon versus Young.”
…
“there are these competing factions. There are the pro-polygamy faction and the anti-polygamy faction within the leadership of the church in Nauvoo, and Sidney is definitely seen as the standard bearer for the people who are against polygamy. The problem for the people who are in favor of polygamy is that this would immediately discredit their families, or actually their activities so if your daughter, like my great, great, great, great grandparents whose daughter Nancy Mariah Winchester married—one of the young wives who married Joseph Smith. They on the one hand, in a positive sense feel sealed to the prophet for all eternity. This is an important thing that brings their family to the highest degree of glory.
On the other hand, if it was to be rejected as a doctrine, suddenly this calls into question what she’s been doing, you know she could be a shamed woman essentially in Victorian America, so in a way, life or death, or at least reputation and your entire family is at stake as to whether this doctrine is sanctified or whether it’s rejected.”
I think this struggle between the pro and anti-polygamy factions cements the problems between Emma and Brigham. Following Joseph’s death, Emma loses all interest in organized religion, which I feel in large part leads to her marriage to non-Mormon Lewis Bidamon. I mean really the polygamy and persecution that Emma went through would try anyone’s faith. Then when her son Joseph III feels that God asks him to take over leadership of the RLDS Church, of course Emma would support her own son (though with reservations.) After Joseph III’s appointment as new prophet of the RLDS Church in 1860, there would be no reconciliation between her and Brigham. I think the succession crisis explains a lot of Emma’s motives and reservations about Brigham Young. This is kind of off topic, so if you’re interested in succession crisis, go to
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2012/05/24/john-hamer-interview-part-1/ I haven’t seen the book either, but I did a Richard Bushman Transcript about the Multiple First Vision accounts: http://www.mormonheretic.org/2012/06/10/bushman-on-the-multiple-first-vision-accounts/ Also, Kevin Hinckley put together a fascinating “Synoptic First Vision” that seems to wash away many of the discrepancies. It was really interesting. See
http://kevinhinckley.com/uploads/Combined_First_Vision.doc Dax, like you now, I used to be really strong anti-polygamy. I guess I can thank/blame Ray for some softening on my part. But the fact of the matter is that the church does allow multiple sealings for women (posthumously). I blogged about it last year: http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/07/24/multiple-sealings-for-women/ About 15 years ago, I dated a widow. She was really bothered by the fact that she couldn’t be sealed to another man. At the time, I had no response. She said she felt like “used goods”. She said that her first husband didn’t treat her well, and she didn’t want to be sealed to him forever (he died in an avalanche.) She even spoke to a general authority about it. Since her first sealing was binding, she felt it didn’t matter if she married a non-member, so she did. The funny thing is that when she dies, she will be posthumously sealed to this guy. Since the church does allow polyandrous sealings, it seems a bit silly and counterproductive to not allow a woman to be sealed to multiple men in this life.
My brother died about 7 years ago, and his wife felt much the same way. She married a good man, but he wasn’t active, and they couldn’t be sealed together. My sister died 15 years ago. Her husband remarried without feeling like “used goods”. The sealing practices are tilted in favor of the men, and against the women. Brigham Young married many of Joseph’s wives, though it was for time I believe, not eternity. When a polygynous male died, his wives were encouraged to remarry other Mormon leaders, though only for time, not eternity. As of the 1969 change (thanks to President Howard W. Hunter and Pres. McKay), these women could now be sealed polyandrously to these men.
That changes perspective quite a bit, though obviously there is the feeling that “God will sort it all out in the next life.” Eliza R. Snow will have been sealed to Joseph and Brigham. While our theology teaches that she will get to choose in the next life, what if she chooses both? (Is that really not in the realm of possibility?)
Cwald, I am with you. I think that what’s good for the geese should be good for the gander. They actually discussed that on the show, and Kody said it would be disgusting for women to have multiple husbands. LIke you, I’d be more comfortable accepting polygamy as a practice if it went both ways. I know that there have been some commenters at W&T that believe in LDS tribal anarchical relationships in which they are essentially group marriages, rather than simply polygynous or polyandrous marriages. (I think the term is polyamorous.) Once again, I think polygamy is wrong, but the Browns do present an interesting perspective, and my of posting the above was merely to say that the AUB practice is for “consenting” adults, not child brides, or having the prophet assign marriages. I’ll give them credit for that. AUB people enter polygynous relationships willingly. From page 11 of the PDF above, the AUB “do not view themselves in opposition to, or in competition with, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nor do they view themselves as an entirely separate religion. Rather, they view themselves as a priesthood body whose work runs parallel with that of the LDS Church. For this reason, most AUB adherents generally maintain a fond feeling toward the LDS Church and its members, and they strive to support the LDS Church’s good works whenever possible.”
It should be noted that Kody Brown served an LDS mission to Texas. His parents converted while he was on his mission, and then he joined after his mission.
The following comes from a PDF available online concerning the Apostolic United Brethren. Here is the entire document available at utah.gov: http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf The following text is taken from a public statement issued by AUB leaders, regarding their beliefs and practices, on March 17th, 2008:
1. We are, and always have been, wholly opposed to abuse and oppression of any kind, and we feel it our duty to promptly report any suspected abuse to the proper law enforcement authorities.
2. We do not encourage or permit “child-bride” marriages or arranged marriages. Instead, it is a fundamental principle of our faith that it is the sacred privilege of all, male and female, when they are adequately mature, to choose whom they will marry. Forced, arranged, or assigned marriages are not a part of our belief or practice.
3. We try to encourage our people to take care of their own needs and to entirely avoid any reliance upon the government. Though there are some members of our faith who may have received government assistance, they are encouraged to become self-sustaining as soon as possible. Our teachings are to be honorable in all our financial dealings which includes full payment of all required taxes as well as avoiding debt.
4. Although we have not had any affiliation with the FLDS for nearly 60 years due to some of these very issues, we are nevertheless deeply concerned that Texas state agencies have violated God-given and Constitutional rights of the FLDS community at the YFZ ranch contrary to principles and freedoms that iconic America stands for.
In summary, we do not support abuse of any kind, and feel that the perpetrator, whether it be an individual, a group, or a government, ought to be held accountable for perpetrating abuse. We believe in being honest in our financial dealings and in providing for our own people. We are appreciative of this good country in which we are allowed to worship Almighty God, and we willingly pay our taxes so that these and other freedoms may be enjoyed by all. We do not condone underage, assigned, or incestuous relationships. We abhor compulsion and oppression in all its forms and support those laws that seek to properly address these issues.
* * *
Marriage below the age of 18 is strongly discouraged for first marriages and is prohibited for plural marriages. Courtship is a matter of choice between the parties, though authorization to court is first obtained from priesthood and family authorities. Husbands are expected to consult with and obtain the consent of existing wives before considering courtship with another potential bride. The husband or father is looked to as the patriarchal leader, but consultation with his wives is considered an important part of family government.
The AUB priesthood council encourages cooperation with law enforcement wherever appropriate. Law enforcement personnel involved in an investigation may benefit from soliciting the help of the ecclesiastical leadership while making clear the scope of the investigation.
…
Many grown children accept and maintain the religion of their parents; however, some do not. Although no statistics are available, perhaps as many as fifty percent of grown children of AUB members do not continue in the religion, although most maintain life-long family relationships with their AUB relatives. Such grown children who disassociate themselves from the religion, including many who are sons and daughters of AUB ecclesiastical leaders, are not exiled, yet they generally withdraw on their own, and this is in keeping with the concepts of agency promulgated by the group.
Dax, the AUB do consider polygamy essential to their salvation. Your comments above may apply quite well to the FLDS, but they do not apply at all to the AUB. According to Anne Wilde, many of the “unaffiliated” polygamists are actually active, temple-going LDS members who keep their polygamy a secret. Anne herself let everyone think she was simply divorced with a couple of kids, attended the temple regularly. When people asked why she wouldn’t remarry (when she was already secretly married to polygamist Ogden Kraut), she simply replied that she liked things the way they were. With the secret polygamy, she was very independent, ran her own house, had her own job (as a “single” mother), etc. It was nothing like the FLDS, and she was really quite a feminist who ran her household quite independent of a man. So the stereotypes you use really don’t apply to either the AUB or the unaffiliated polygamists who don’t practice the extreme patriarchy of the FLDS. The AUB are VERY religous, and consider polygamy essential, but women are not forced into it in any way. In fact, several of Kody Brown’s children say that they will not be polygamists, and it was even promoted on the show. (see http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/06/25/sisterwives-children-polygamy-scandal-new-interview/ I think Ray and Shawn have made some excellent points regarding polygamy (and Shawn–thanks for the Bushman quotes–those are great.) For the record, I’m against polygamy, but let me clarify some misconceptions. The FLDS Church gets the lions’ share of publicity, but there are other polygamist groups. The Apostolic United Brethren is a group (also known as the Allred group) that practices a much different form of polygamy, and this is the group Kody Brown (of the show “Sister Wives”) is from. They don’t marry teenage brides. I believe they limit wives to 4 (I think there is an ancient Midrashic tradition that says no more than 4 wives.)
I know there is a stereotype of patriarchy, but in many cases, the early polygamists were quite feminist. Mormons were the first to allow women to vote (which Congress later took away.) Brigham Young encouraged women to attend medical school. Some were quite professional. There can be a lot of feminist leanings in polygynous societies, and some of that is evident in the AUB. In Kody Brown’s case, wives #1 and #2 are primarily breadwinners (along with Kody.) Wife #3 is the stay at home mom. Wife #1 picked wife #4 for Kody (which is shown clearly in season 1.)
There is more diversity among polygamists, and the FLDS are really a small subset of the groups. (They are the largest, but are dwarfed by other groups and rivaled in size by the AUB. The largest group is “unaffiliated” with 40% of all mormon polygamists.) The “Sister Wives” show is really interesting. If you want to know more about non-FLDS polygamist groups, I did a post. See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/10/10/fundamentalist-mormonism-more-diverse-than-you-thought/
