Polygamy Essay Lesson

[MerrieMiss]

I recorded the lesson, but I’m not posting a transcript. I’m using it to type up general notes. I’m a little reluctant to do this because I don’t want to “out” myself. I admit that part of me was wondering in the week preceding this lesson if the leadership was having these lessons to see who the “less faithful” members are. Yes, I’m paranoid. Anyway, this is just the lesson without any commentary from me.

The meeting began with two men asking for money for friends of scouting. I only bring this up because they took over ten minutes to do this and I think it’s relevant. The lesson ended up being 35 minutes long, but went over by almost ten minutes.

A counselor from the RS taught. She is a very TBM, Provo-type, pious Mormon. She taught the lesson lecture style – there was some input from the class, but very little. There were five black and white portraits of ancestors on the table, all men and a miniature Nauvoo temple. She began the lesson by saying that it was decided by the Stake that there would be eleven lessons this year on the Gospel topics essays and we were beginning with polygamy. She did not specify which stake presidency this was – the Stake President, or Stake RS. The HP and EQ did not have a lesson on the essays, polygamy, or anything like that.

So here’s the way the lesson basically went:

The church was organized in 1830
Polygamy revelation was in 1831

The people who lived at this time were feisty revolutionaries who were willing to fight and live for what they believed was right. The early LDS church had a lot of unusual and difficult doctrines. People joined because they studied and had a testimony. People felt very strongly both in favor and against the church.

Five reasons for polygamy
1. Raise BIC seed – BoM
2. Made marriage available to all who desired it – there were more women than men
3. helped economically disadvantaged women – distributed wealth more equally
4. Promoted ethnic intermarriage (between different European communities) – cohesion and group identification
5. Peculiar/covenant people

Joseph Smith (JS) received revelation on plural marriage because he wanted to understand the bible. He wanted to understand it, not asking how he could start practicing it too. (small nervous laughter from a few women)

Initially JS did not tell many people about plural marriage. Mostly men who were close to him, the school of prophets. He didn’t keep a lot of notes on it, but other people did and that’s how we have the info from decades after any of this happened. Plural marriage was not taught or asked of anybody.

1834-1842 an angel came to JS three times and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage, JS hesitated. During the final angelic visitation the angel had a drawn sword and threatened JS. JS had to choose between his wife and the angel with a sword.
Emma was opposed to plural marriage. There were times when she was more humble than other times and would allow it a little bit. We only know from what other people say. Some people say he took a wife in Kirtland, but that she left (the church, I presume is what she means). But there are no facts about this.

Polygamy is hated in western culture and is an artifact of Roman culture. That’s why so many people are opposed to it. George Q. Cannon, in the journal of discourses, quotes someone who talks about how well taken care of and without prostitution eastern Asian countries were because polygamy took care of women better than monogamy, which results in degradation and poverty. (A few comments from the class during this section.)

1841 - First polygamous wife to (JS) was Louisa Beaman

Plural marriage was done for practical, economic, and religious reasons. The promise of exaltation and families can be forever are the reasons people were drawn to it – sealings.

The people of the time differentiated between “time and eternity” and “eternity only.” Difficult for us to understand today.

First plural marriages were for eternity only. There were no “physical relations.” Many of the women he married for eternity only were already married to living men. Again, difficult concept to understand in the 21st century. It seems wrong, but some of the women who left records felt an urgency to be married and sealed to priesthood authority – they were married to non-members or apostates or in unhappy marriages. Divorce was difficult so sealing to JS gave them eternal blessings. The principle was misunderstood. Quote: “I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life,” said Zina Huntington Jacobs, “for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman…I searched the scripture & by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself.” Much of this part of the lesson was read from the Kirtland/Nauvoo essay.

Emma did not have a testimony of plural marriage. JS never said anything bad about Emma. We know nothing about their conversations about polygamy. We know from others’ writings it was her most difficult struggle and led her to not going to Utah. It caused a lot of bitter feelings. She was vilified in general conference addresses. But JS never said anything bad about her. He had nice names for her like dearest and loving, stuff like that.

1844 - 29 men and 50 women entered in plural marriage. That’s confusing and doesn’t really make sense, but moving on…

We don’t know how many women married JS, but we know most of them were eternity only. The oldest was 56, the youngest was married before her fifteenth birthday. It was okay back then because it was legal and common on the frontier.

“The girl who married him before she was fifteen” said her marriage was eternity only.

1843 revelation was written down, luckily in more than one place because Emma destroyed it.

1857 half of Utah residents involved in polygamist families.

1862 the US passed laws against it. 1870, 25 -30% live in polygamist households. Not everyone was part of a plural marriage. Only about 25% of men. Only 66% of them had two wives.

1879 the anti-polygamy laws were upheld meaning, a person can believe what they want but can’t do whatever they want. This is instructive for our own day. And the church instructed members to obey God more than the government.

1880s US begins to prosecute for polygamy – women and children go into hiding., Edmunds Act (jail time and fines) almost all GAs and stake presidents in hiding. Difficult to run a church.

US government begins to confiscate church property, like temples. Saving ordinances could not be performed. Polygamist colonies begin.

Manifesto says no more plural marriage. Wilford Woodruff received revelation that the church would be destroyed if polygamy was not ended. Church tries to build a temple in Missouri as commanded, but antagonism is too much, God lifts the commandment. Lifting the commandment of polygamy is much the same thing. The saints did not realize that lifting the celestial law of plural marriage would be a permanent thing. The church has never come out and said polygamy was wrong, just that we’re not going to do it based on the laws of the land.

Amnesty granted to polygamists. Some people still got married plurally, mostly outside of Utah, but second Manifesto stopped plural marriage completely. This is when the fundamentalist groups split off, the groups that practice polygamy today. We do not practice it any more. People in plural marriages could remain in them and kept having children in them up through the 1930s.

Shows her ancestral photographs who were polygamists or descended from polygamists.

Why we need to learn this: It was one of the most challenging laws of the restoration, violating cultural and legal norms leading to persecution. Despite this, there was benefit to the church and those who were faithful (to polygamy) we respect and honor these people. We may be entering an era where we are going to be asked to do hard things from the church of church members from church leaders and where are we going to stand?

[MerrieMiss]

So, just three things as commentary:

1. The nerve of two men asking the RS for money for boys (scouts) during a lesson about polygamy and taking more than ten minutes to do it was really telling.
2. The comment I really wanted to make and didn’t since time ran out, was that I found it ironic that in a meeting comprised only of women, in a women’s lesson/organization, that the centerpiece was a photograph of five men. Besides the one Zina Huntington Jacobs quote from the essay, there was no use of primary sources, photographs, documents, absolutely nothing from a female perspective, about polygamy which is a huge female issue in the church.
3. My husband was disappointed the EQ/HP did not have this lesson. He wanted to have a spirited discussion after church. We did that on our own, but as he put it, “So much for correlating lessons so we can talk about them together as a family.”

[Mormorrisey]

Thanks for the report!!! I might have more commentary later, but the one thing that caught my eye was that the first plural wife was Louisa Beaman? Uh, Fanny Alger anyone? That's wild that they skipped right over her. Poor Fanny. Lost to Mormon history forever, adding insult to injury.

And yes, to have appeals for scouting? Wonder if that was strategic; maybe each month they'll have appeals to clean the toilets, more VT visits and the like to have only 30 minutes on these nasty essays.

Great read!!

[Red Ryder]

See, polygamy was normal! Nothing to see here folks.

You may consider a counter strike by congratulating her on a lesson well done and recommend she listen to the year of polygamy podcast.

Obviously it wasn't an accurate lesson but she gets props for teaching the inoculated version.

I wish I had her email address because it would be fun to interact with her about this stuff.

[AllieOop]

So here’s the way the lesson basically went:

The church was organized in 1830
Polygamy revelation was in 1831

Wow, MerrieMiss! Thank you for typing all of this out for us to read. It's all so interesting and also revealing to read much of what (and how) she taught this lesson.

I want to make SO many comments, but I'll start with the quote above. If the sister teaching actually specifically stated that the revelation was given in 1831 (as if it is a proven fact), she is flat out wrong.

Even in the introduction for D&C 132, it states:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831

Um...."Evidence" such as his relationship with Fanny Alger, so they have to put this in the intro (that he may have known "some of the principles" as early as 1831).

It's also interesting she states that Louisa Beaman was Joseph's first polygamous wife. Even in the essay, it relates details about his marriage to Fanny in Kirtland and just states that Louisa was his first plural wife in Nauvoo.

One has to ask this question though about the Fanny Alger marriage:

Since Joseph had not received the sealing keys yet and he could not be married to her legally, what type of marriage was it? What ceremony was used?


***********************

[MoPag]

So, just three things as commentary:

1. The nerve of two men asking the RS for money for boys (scouts) during a lesson about polygamy and taking more than ten minutes to do it was really telling.

The f@$#ing nerve! But so, so typical!! (BTW- My DD is a girl scout and she sells cookies.)

2. The comment I really wanted to make and didn’t since time ran out, was that I found it ironic that in a meeting comprised only of women, in a women’s lesson/organization, that the centerpiece was a photograph of five men. Besides the one Zina Huntington Jacobs quote from the essay, there was no use of primary sources, photographs, documents, absolutely nothing from a female perspective, about polygamy which is a huge female issue in the church.

Amen to this. It's just another way to let women know that they aren't a valid voice in the Mormon narrative.

Thank you for enduring to the end of this lesson so you could provide this write up.

[AllieOop]

Why we need to learn this: It was one of the most challenging laws of the restoration,....

Polygamy was one of the laws that needed to be restored? No where in the Bible does God command anyone to live polygamy. The only thing that even comes close is the Levirate marriages where a brother is to marry his dead brother's wife to take care of her. He may already be married, so that would be polygamy. But this is not a commandment to live polygamy, it is a commandment to take care of your brother's family after he has deceased.

So why did polygamy need to be a necessary part of the restoration of the gospel? And, why was it so important that an angel needed to threaten to kill Joseph if he didn't live it?


(Sorry....can you tell that polygamy is a "trigger topic" for me? I'll try to calm down now....)


*****************

[Red Ryder]

(Sorry....can you tell that polygamy is a "trigger topic" for me? I'll try to calm down now....)

I'm guessing this isn't the right time to ask your hand in 2nd marriage then Allie?

I'll let the angel with a flaming sword standing over my shoulder know it's not the right time to ask.

Daaaaaaamn, he's swinging that thing at me like Darth Vador! He's pretty mad and has threatened to destroy my li.....

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Excellent report. Very telling about the TBM mindset. Thanks for taking the time to do this for us.

[AllieOop]

(Sorry....can you tell that polygamy is a "trigger topic" for me? I'll try to calm down now....)

I'm guessing this isn't the right time to ask your hand in 2nd marriage then Allie?

I'll let the angel with a flaming sword standing over my shoulder know it's not the right time to ask.

Daaaaaaamn, he's swinging that thing at me like Darth Vador! He's pretty mad and has threatened to destroy my li.....

Ok...this made me laugh...so funny.

And all I can hear now is "schwing"


********************

[Give It Time]

Thank you for typing this up and risking outing yourself.

I read this and thought, even though this was taught by a woman, the whole lesson was just one giant mansplanation about how women should feel about it. It was all spiritual, you see. You may find it repugnant, as Emma did, but when Emma was "humble" she permitted it. Lovely job shaming, there.

BTW, people are feisty, read, study and stand up for what they believe in, now. The Women's March demonstrates that.

[MoPag]

I read this and thought, even though this was taught by a woman, the whole lesson was just one giant mansplanation about how women should feel about it.

Wow! So true. I guess you could even say that church itself is just one big man-splaination.

[foolmeonce]

Ok everybody, repeat after me. "I'd like to bear my testimony, I know the Church is TRUE, we only teach TRUE things, and we always seek out TRUTH."

[Corsair]

Thank you for the lesson outline. This is a good way to present it in a faithful context.

Why we need to learn this: It was one of the most challenging laws of the restoration, violating cultural and legal norms leading to persecution. Despite this, there was benefit to the church and those who were faithful (to polygamy) we respect and honor these people. We may be entering an era where we are going to be asked to do hard things from the church of church members from church leaders and where are we going to stand?

This is a really good idea for sincere consideration. Was there any discussion about exactly what "hard things" that church leaders might ask us to do in the church? Certainly we can see how the profound sacrifice of plural marriage led to an enduring religious identity that looms over us today more than a century after the practice ended.

What could the LDS church ask their members to do that would be more equivalent to the sacrifice, struggle, and heartbreak of plural marriage? It could be argued that we are currently asked to faithfully defend a bunch of LDS doctrines that appear to be defenseless. The church also asks young people to go on missions and the older crowd gets similar injunctions. Can we conceive of some meaningful and difficult new task that could be added to the already full slate of guilt inducting requirements over the faithful today?

A lot of us are in mixed faith marriages. A new assignment from LDS leadership could add a new layer of marital struggle on a modern couple. One possible situation is a senior couples mission. One of these years my children will all have moved away and my faithful wife will likely start asking about us going on a couples mission for the LDS church or to simply be temple workers. Certainly bishops have a generated report that lists demographically likely couples in their ward. I would not want to go but I know for certain that my wife does. It's one of her regrets that she did not go when she was 21 because she had recently married me instead. I am not certain how this situation will turn out.

[The Beast]

Thanks for the write up. So very much fertilizer in all the justification that came with the lesson.

[MerrieMiss]

Since it was a lecture style format, there was no time or place to make any comments or questions. She’s a nice lady. We’re not friends, but we’ve been to each other’s homes and we've worked with each other in callings. I didn’t want to ask questions and have her feel like I was picking on her. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy lesson to teach and no one envied her the opportunity.

It was difficult to sit through simply because just about everything she said was either not true, half true, true only because of semantics, her opinion, or not the entire story. I could have asked a question for just about every point she made.

The thing that bothers me most about this, and this was true of an anti-homosexuality fifth Sunday our ward had a couple years ago, is that there is no discussion. The lesson is very purposely constructed so there is no discussion. There’s absolutely no place for it.

Some very innocent and general questions I could have asked:

• (referring to the timeline on the board) When did Joseph tell Emma about polygamy?

• When did polygamy change from platonic to sexual?

• If it wasn’t sexual, why was Emma so angry?

• If polygamy takes care of women, why are the FLDS so poor?

• Why are women in polygamous Muslim countries treated so poorly?

• What is the policy for polygamist members of the church in countries where it is legal?

• Do you think the church is going to change its stance on polygamy in countries where it is legal?

• Was polygamy a policy or a doctrine? Do doctrines change?

But here’s the thing, and it’s like this with so many things in the church – we can’t really talk about it. We can’t have a discussion, we can’t ask questions, we just get lectured to, told it’s the truth, and if you have a problem, you just don’t understand. Just like Emma. You just don’t get it, do you?

[wtfluff]

It was difficult to sit through simply because just about everything she said was either not true, half true, true only because of semantics, her opinion, or not the entire story. I could have asked a question for just about every point she made.

This describes pretty much ALL of correlated church instruction.

[AllieOop]

• When did polygamy change from platonic to sexual?

MerrieMiss, all of your questions above are excellent and I'd love to hear those answered in front of a church group. I understand why you couldn't ask any of them (especially with how the lesson was structured and also because I feel for this teacher and it probably wasn't fair to put her on the spot).

It would have been really interesting to hear a TBM try to answer the question I quoted above. For some reason members have a huge double standard when it comes to other Prophets (and early church members and leaders) who lived polygamy vs. how they believe Joseph lived it. Why was it ok for Brigham and others to have sex with their plural wives, but members fall apart at the thought of Joseph doing the same?

The answer to your question is that we know others who Joseph called to live polygamy in Nauvoo were having sex with their plural wives. There were children born from these unions (while Joseph was still alive). Which then brings up the question as to why Joseph would have allowed that if they weren't supposed to be having sex as part of living polygamy?