Polygamy and later sexual repression

[Palerider]

Question:

Where do dead prophets go after they die?

1.Telestial kingdom

2. Terrestrial kingdom

3. Celestial kingdom

None of the above......they go:

UNDER THE BUS!!!

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Question:

Where do dead prophets go after they die?

1.Telestial kingdom

2. Terrestrial kingdom

3. Celestial kingdom

None of the above......they go:

UNDER THE BUS!!!

Good one! [emoji38]

[slavereeno]

Question:

Where do dead prophets go after they die?

1.Telestial kingdom

2. Terrestrial kingdom

3. Celestial kingdom

None of the above......they go:

UNDER THE BUS!!!

[Rob4Hope]

This thread really took a detour. I was gunna read that book and comment on how I felt there was a connection between polygamy and sexual repression, as the polygamous mothers trained their children to abhor anything remotely connecting sexuality with "pleasure".

I'll try to post findings for the first chapter today.

[alas]

This thread really took a detour. I was gunna read that book and comment on how I felt there was a connection between polygamy and sexual repression, as the polygamous mothers trained their children to abhor anything remotely connecting sexuality with "pleasure".

I'll try to post findings for the first chapter today.

I am interested in your theory, so I am going to throw every wrench I can pick up to see if one of them can jam up the works on this theory.

Polygamy was sold to the people as something to give the men more posterity because the greater your posterity, the more men who were below you in the eternal hierarchy. As if your sons would not become equal to you ever. But would be the spirits you sent to the earth you create???

Anyway, polygamy supposedly was all about making more babies, so, sex for pleasure was still denied under polygamy. They pretended it was not about sexual pleasure, but only about more and more children.

Yet, Brigham had this idea that men had sexual urges they HAD to satisfy, so with only one wife that would force them to visit prostitutes. I won’t go find a quote on this because they disgust me.

The other thing that is a result of polygamy according to one study that compared religions and rates of child in home sexual abuse (he wasn’t talking pedophiles, but fathers who have sex with daughters) was that religions with a history of “strange sexual practices like polygamy” had higher rates of incest. And I wish Self proclaimed greatness was around to confirm that incest is rampant in the polygamous communities in Hildale/Colorado City.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[Rob4Hope]

Chapter 1.1

Fanny Alger:

Approximately a year later, in early 1833, Joseph Smith, Jr., was joined to Fanny Alger in perhaps the first plural marriage in Mormon history.

Compton, Todd M.. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 1033-1034). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

But....surprise surprise:

Section 110
Visions manifested to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, April 3, 1836. The occasion was that of a Sabbath day meeting. Joseph Smith’s history states: “In the afternoon, I assisted the other Presidents in distributing the Lord’s Supper to the Church, receiving it from the Twelve, whose privilege it was to officiate at the sacred desk this day. After having performed this service to my brethren, I retired to the pulpit, the veils being dropped, and bowed myself, with Oliver Cowdery, in solemn and silent prayer. After rising from prayer, the following vision was opened to both of us.”

Joseph didn't have the keys of eternal marriage. I've heard this date problem in the past, but wanted to record some actual documentation. Compton provides some here. Just wanted to get it on paper.

[Rob4Hope]

This thread really took a detour. I was gunna read that book and comment on how I felt there was a connection between polygamy and sexual repression, as the polygamous mothers trained their children to abhor anything remotely connecting sexuality with "pleasure".

I'll try to post findings for the first chapter today.

I am interested in your theory, so I am going to throw every wrench I can pick up to see if one of them can jam up the works on this theory.

Polygamy was sold to the people as something to give the men more posterity because the greater your posterity, the more men who were below you in the eternal hierarchy. As if your sons would not become equal to you ever. But would be the spirits you sent to the earth you create???

Anyway, polygamy supposedly was all about making more babies, so, sex for pleasure was still denied under polygamy. They pretended it was not about sexual pleasure, but only about more and more children.

Yet, Brigham had this idea that men had sexual urges they HAD to satisfy, so with only one wife that would force them to visit prostitutes. I won’t go find a quote on this because they disgust me.

The other thing that is a result of polygamy according to one study that compared religions and rates of child in home sexual abuse (he wasn’t talking pedophiles, but fathers who have sex with daughters) was that religions with a history of “strange sexual practices like polygamy” had higher rates of incest. And I wish Self proclaimed greatness was around to confirm that incest is rampant in the polygamous communities in Hildale/Colorado City.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Alas...I don't think much of this will end up being "wrenches in the wheel cogs" actually, cuz in a lot of way, I think most everything you post WILL be accurate. My question of sexual repression later on could stem for everything you post!...but could also be one small tentacle on a massive monster.

I wanted to comment on your statement from Brigham Young and having sexual urges that had to be satisfied. I've read multiple things from that, and I think something was even said by one of the Pratts, or perhaps also HCK. Brigham, if I recall, talked about the fall of the Roman Empire, and how monogamy was the cause.

It was also interesting how the idea of taking care of our "surplus girls", as quoted by HCK, was used as a moral justification for polygamy.

These and other statements are so misogynistic they are sickening.

If anyone can find some quotes and references, would be most grateful.....

[Rob4Hope]

As early as Spring of 1832 Bro Joseph said “Brother Levi, the Lord has revealed to me that it is his will that righteous men shall take Righteous women even a plurality of Wives that a Righteous race may be sent forth uppon the Earth preparatory to the ushering in of the Millenial Reign of our Redeemer – For the Lord has such a high respect for the nobles of his kingdom that he is not willing for them to come through the Loins of a Careles People – Therefore; it behoves those who embrace that Principle to pay strict atention to even the Least requirement of our Heavenly Father.”

Compton, Todd M.. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 1143-1147). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

Doctrinal inconsistency here. If this is accurate for JS, then why would Jesus be born through the loins of Judah (who was an adulterer and murderer), and David, who was clearly both, and condemned by a prophet?

JS makes up doctrine as he wants it seems. (sorry...this is not germain to the topic, but interesting).

[Rob4Hope]

The polygamous marriage proposal is indirect, a remarkable combination of the romantic and the non-romantic. “I love Fanny,” Smith tells Hancock, yet he does not profess his love to Fanny face to face. He uses an intermediary, a male relative, to propose to her. Despite the indirection, this is entirely consistent with Smith’s later method of approaching prospective plural wives in Nauvoo.

Compton, Todd M.. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 1170-1172). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

JS was chicken sh!t! You ask for a wife through someone else? This is degrading, but it also spared JS the possibility of rejection to his face, and also opened up the possibility of denial ("I didn't ask Levi to say that!...he did it himself!")

Its a pattern of abuse. It also spreads the web of collusion....

[FreeFallin]

The polygamous marriage proposal is indirect, a remarkable combination of the romantic and the non-romantic. “I love Fanny,” Smith tells Hancock, yet he does not profess his love to Fanny face to face. He uses an intermediary, a male relative, to propose to her. Despite the indirection, this is entirely consistent with Smith’s later method of approaching prospective plural wives in Nauvoo.

Compton, Todd M.. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 1170-1172). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

JS was chicken sh!t! You ask for a wife through someone else? This is degrading, but it also spared JS the possibility of rejection to his face, and also opened up the possibility of denial ("I didn't ask Levi to say that!...he did it himself!")

Its a pattern of abuse. It also spreads the web of collusion....

Amen.

[Rob4Hope]

chapter 1 end...

It is a good example of what Lerner calls the “commodification” of women.

Compton, Todd M.. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 1375-1376). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

Alas...this is what you and others have said about this polygamy thing--its misogynistic bent degraded women, making them possessions and even "rewards" -- controlled by men of course (and not all men either--just the select few) -- from God. The women, at least Compton speculated, could refuse the union. But we know later in Nauvoo what happened--the women were ridiculed and destroyed.

This first chapter doesn't offer anything relevant to my thesis above, but it is setting the stage for later on.

[Palerider]

Doctrinal inconsistency here. If this is accurate for JS, then why would Jesus be born through the loins of Judah (who was an adulterer and murderer), and David, who was clearly both, and condemned by a prophet?

JS makes up doctrine as he wants it seems. (sorry...this is not germain to the topic, but interesting).

You are correct here Rob. Rahab and Ruth we're definitely gentile women in Christ's ancestry. And Tamar and Bathsheba were probably as well.

If one twists the Old Testament scriptures or misinterprets them, you can come up with this "gotta prepare a people for the 2nd Coming" theory, but the reality is the scriptures don't necessarily support that scenario AT ALL.

There's nothing saying Israel has to be gathered BEFORE the 2nd Coming. It's a bogus prediction.

But I do see some parallels between Joseph attempting to artificially create a "Righteous race" and Hitler's attempt to create a "Super race" intended to take over the world.

If Joseph can put himself in the position of saying:

"See here what I have done! I have prepared and made a righteous people before Christ even arrives and we have everything under control. Wherefore, I DESERVE glory and great praise to be heaped upon my head for I have done God's work for him. Wherefore give me thing honor!"

Oops! Where have we heard THAT before???

Yes. Joseph is making this crap up as he goes. Does he believe his own bogus doctrine? It's scary to think that he actually may have.

[Red Ryder]

Rob, have you read the book " The women of Mormonism : or, The story of polygamy as told by the victims themselves"
by Froiseth, Jennie Anderson published in 1882?

When you're done reading your book, go and read this one. It's from many of the victims of polygamy and explains their story so well you'll never look at Joseph Smith again as a prophet. Oh, wait...

You can find a scan of the book here.

https://archive.org/details/womenofmorm ... oi/page/n7

[Rob4Hope]

Rob, have you read the book " The women of Mormonism : or, The story of polygamy as told by the victims themselves"
by Froiseth, Jennie Anderson published in 1882?

When you're done reading your book, go and read this one. It's from many of the victims of polygamy and explains their story so well you'll never look at Joseph Smith again as a prophet. Oh, wait...

You can find a scan of the book here.

https://archive.org/details/womenofmorm ... oi/page/n7

I'll have to take a look. I got soooooo many books backed up now......

[Rob4Hope]

Chapter 2: Lucinda Harris.

Finally the strangeness of the polyandrous triangle with Smith was posthumously commemorated. On January 22, 1846, Lucinda was sealed to Joseph “for eternity” and to George for time in a proxy marriage. ... This sealing seems to show George’s awareness of his wife’s connection to Joseph, and it certainly indicates his willingness to deliver up Lucinda to Joseph in the next life.

Compton, Todd M.. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 1597-1608). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

Nothing that supports sexual repression later on, but this quote certainly paints a weird picture of what was going on. You have this love triangle polyandry, and all of this probably behind Emma's back.

[alas]

Rob, I suspect that my “wrench” above is actually a “cog” in the whole theory. See, with how they insisted on marrying young women instead of old widows to “take care of them” they had to have a cover theory other than lust. So, it was all about building up their posterity for the next life. This is really the idea that sex is only for having babies. Under polygamy they were saying the women had to be young and fertile to produce babies and not sealed to another man so it could build up the guy’s posterity. It was only about producing babies. The women were really like breeding stock. They were denying that they were doing it for fun, for lust, for SEX, but just for making babies, which just accidentally takes sex, which God designed as fun for the men so they would do it.

Then under sexual repression they were essentially saying the same thing, that sex was not for fun or lust, but only for making babies. The only difference is that the pressure to make babies all falls on the one woman.

[Rob4Hope]

Rob, I suspect that my “wrench” above is actually a “cog” in the whole theory. See, with how they insisted on marrying young women instead of old widows to “take care of them” they had to have a cover theory other than lust. So, it was all about building up their posterity for the next life. This is really the idea that sex is only for having babies. Under polygamy they were saying the women had to be young and fertile to produce babies and not sealed to another man so it could build up the guy’s posterity. It was only about producing babies. The women were really like breeding stock. They were denying that they were doing it for fun, for lust, for SEX, but just for making babies, which just accidentally takes sex, which God designed as fun for the men so they would do it.

Then under sexual repression they were essentially saying the same thing, that sex was not for fun or lust, but only for making babies. The only difference is that the pressure to make babies all falls on the one woman.

I agree about the baby thing, and I think that this was probably promulgated to their children. Which, as you indicate, would give credence for Joseph Fielding Smith's statements that contraception is a serious evil, that sex was for having babies, and that if you are not having babies, then ONLY complete abstinence was acceptable. Then SWK came along and made statements that sex for fun was from the devil, EVEN IF BETWEEN MARRIED PEOPLE.

Do you think that sex for babies was all there was to it? From things I've read by John D. Lee, there was most certainly lust involved....so for some of the polygamous men, this was their version of lust indulgence, not just babies but sex for sex sake.

Thoughts?

[alas]

Rob, I suspect that my “wrench” above is actually a “cog” in the whole theory. See, with how they insisted on marrying young women instead of old widows to “take care of them” they had to have a cover theory other than lust. So, it was all about building up their posterity for the next life. This is really the idea that sex is only for having babies. Under polygamy they were saying the women had to be young and fertile to produce babies and not sealed to another man so it could build up the guy’s posterity. It was only about producing babies. The women were really like breeding stock. They were denying that they were doing it for fun, for lust, for SEX, but just for making babies, which just accidentally takes sex, which God designed as fun for the men so they would do it.

Then under sexual repression they were essentially saying the same thing, that sex was not for fun or lust, but only for making babies. The only difference is that the pressure to make babies all falls on the one woman.

I agree about the baby thing, and I think that this was probably promulgated to their children. Which, as you indicate, would give credence for Joseph Fielding Smith's statements that contraception is a serious evil, that sex was for having babies, and that if you are not having babies, then ONLY complete abstinence was acceptable. Then SWK came along and made statements that sex for fun was from the devil, EVEN IF BETWEEN MARRIED PEOPLE.

Do you think that sex for babies was all there was to it? From things I've read by John D. Lee, there was most certainly lust involved....so for some of the polygamous men, this was their version of lust indulgence, not just babies but sex for sex sake.

Thoughts?

I absolutely think polygamy was about lust. There was little love involved and little respect for women. If they really wanted those women as wives in the next life, why did so many of the men treat them so poorly? Did they really think that women will be given no choice but to remain married to them, and if the woman refuses to be resurrected by a man she doesn’t want for eternity, the children went with her and who she wanted to be sealed to. So, if the wife ended up with no love for her husband, he lost her and her children for eternity anyway.

So, yeah, I think it was primarily about lust. But they didn’t want THAT idea to go public. And they didn’t want to see themselves as motivated by lust. So, they justified themselves by pretending it was about having more children to increase their standing in the CK. It was exactly the kind of excuse that child molesters use when they claim they are teaching their child about sex. It was just a way they could pretend righteousness while being horndogs.

[Rob4Hope]

Rob, I suspect that my “wrench” above is actually a “cog” in the whole theory. See, with how they insisted on marrying young women instead of old widows to “take care of them” they had to have a cover theory other than lust. So, it was all about building up their posterity for the next life. This is really the idea that sex is only for having babies. Under polygamy they were saying the women had to be young and fertile to produce babies and not sealed to another man so it could build up the guy’s posterity. It was only about producing babies. The women were really like breeding stock. They were denying that they were doing it for fun, for lust, for SEX, but just for making babies, which just accidentally takes sex, which God designed as fun for the men so they would do it.

Then under sexual repression they were essentially saying the same thing, that sex was not for fun or lust, but only for making babies. The only difference is that the pressure to make babies all falls on the one woman.

I agree about the baby thing, and I think that this was probably promulgated to their children. Which, as you indicate, would give credence for Joseph Fielding Smith's statements that contraception is a serious evil, that sex was for having babies, and that if you are not having babies, then ONLY complete abstinence was acceptable. Then SWK came along and made statements that sex for fun was from the devil, EVEN IF BETWEEN MARRIED PEOPLE.

Do you think that sex for babies was all there was to it? From things I've read by John D. Lee, there was most certainly lust involved....so for some of the polygamous men, this was their version of lust indulgence, not just babies but sex for sex sake.

Thoughts?

I absolutely think polygamy was about lust. There was little love involved and little respect for women. If they really wanted those women as wives in the next life, why did so many of the men treat them so poorly? Did they really think that women will be given no choice but to remain married to them, and if the woman refuses to be resurrected by a man she doesn’t want for eternity, the children went with her and who she wanted to be sealed to. So, if the wife ended up with no love for her husband, he lost her and her children for eternity anyway.

So, yeah, I think it was primarily about lust. But they didn’t want THAT idea to go public. And they didn’t want to see themselves as motivated by lust. So, they justified themselves by pretending it was about having more children to increase their standing in the CK. It was exactly the kind of excuse that child molesters use when they claim they are teaching their child about sex. It was just a way they could pretend righteousness while being horndogs.

I agree.

It will be interested as I get through more chapters. These early ones only say so much. I think that as JS set the trend, and creeps like BY, HCK and others continued, the damage became more institutionalized, and more and more casulaties mounted.

[Cnsl1]

I watched a couple of episodes of the Netflix documentary 3 wives about a polygamist group near Moab, Utah. I'm not sure how accurately it portrays their lives, but there are some interesting dynamics.

First, it seems like wife#1 in both family groups that are featured is the woman that is most secure and stable, and the one that seems the most supportive of the polygamy arrangement. It's the second wife that seems to have the hardest time. It should be noted that these modern polygamist relationships are likely much different than what was going on in the 1800's, and part of that is due to the influence of our broader culture. The dynamics between men and women are just much different now. As an example, in one family, they profess belief in polygamy but do not practice it... Yet. During interviews, it seems pretty evident that the husband wants to, but that the wife wears the pants and has decided the time isn't right. You get the distinct feeling that it's never gonna be the right time because wife just really doesn't want it.

To reference an earlier question, I do remember reading multiple quotes from church leaders at the time of polygamy offering conjectures as to why it was so good.. like monogamy caused the fall of Rome, and was the reason there was sexual sin and prostitutes, etc. Basically saying men can't keep it in their pants and one woman isn't nearly enough.