Is this why polygamy gets pinned on BY more often than JS?

[scottie]

I found the hearings interesting as well, mostly because I was surprised at how polite the senators were in grilling church representatives. I’ve grown up with stories of the hatred that gentiles had for the early saints, and I’ve seen protracted and harsh modern day senate hearings, so I just assumed that the Smoot hearings would be ugly.

I assume that women who agreed to be plural wives bought into the institution of polygamy. If I married polygamously prior to the repudiation of plural marriage, I would still expect my husband to provide me with children, particularly in the absence of social security and other social safety nets. I think it would be much more cruel to be maintained as a wife without the chance of having children and a family. No Hebrew Queen Michal to King David for me.

You might find this part interesting then, from pages 199-201 (PDF file pages 201-203):

Senator Foraker: Not yet. That answers as to when and how, but what is it? Let us have the revelation itself in so far as it relates to plural marriages.
Mr. Smith: It is very lengthy.
Senator McComas: What section is it?
Senator Foraker: What I wish to ascertain is, and all I care to have you read is enough to show, whether it is a positive command to take plural wives, or a mere recommendation or mere authority to privilege?
The Chairman: Can you not read the portion of it which relates to plural marriages?
Mr. Smith: I can read it if you desire me to.
Senator Foraker: Cite the page and all, and then read.
Mr. Smith: Page 463. The beginning of the revelation is thus: (he goes on to read some verses from D&C section 132)
...
Mr. Richards: Commence with verse 61.
Mr. Tayler: That is right.
Mr. Smith: I will do so.
"61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."
Mr. Richards: The word "justified" is the word used.
The Chairman: There is something a little futher on.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
"62. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."
Senator Foraker: Now, that is the pith of that revelation, as I understand it, according to your judgement, with respect to the taking of plural wives?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Senator Foraker: And I understand you to say, further, that that has been construed by the church to be not an arbitrary direction to take plural wives, but a permissive authority to do so?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
...
Mr. Smith: "64. And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."
Senator Pettus: Now, what is the meaning of the word "destroyed," there, as interpreted by the church?
Mr. Smith: I have no conception of the meaning of it more than the language itself conveys, that the woman who disobeys is in the hands of the Lord for Him to deal with as He may deem proper. I suppose that is what it means.
Senator Foraker: Has the church ever construed that language to give authority to it as a church to destroy the woman?
Mr. Smith: Never in the world. It is not so stated. It is that the Lord--
Senator Foraker: The church construes it, as I understand, to mean that she is in the hands of the Lord, to be destroyed by the Lord.
Mr. Smith: By the Lord, if there is any destruction at all.
Senator Pettus: Have there ever been in the past plural marriages without the consent of the first wife?
Mr. Smith: I do not know of any, unless it may have been Joseph Smith himself.
Senator Pettus: Is the language that you have read construed to mean that she is bound to consent?
Mr. Smith: The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord will destroy her, but I do not know how He will do it.
Senator Bailey: Is it not true that in the very next verse, if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent?
Mr. Smith: Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent.
Senator Bailey: She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement?
Mr. Smith: Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law.
Senator Beveridge: In other words, her consent amounts to nothing?
Mr. Smith: It amounts to nothing but her consent.
Senator Beveridge: So that so far as there is anything in there concerning her consent, it might as well not be there?
Senator Overman: Passing from this, I should like to ask Mr. Smith a question.
...

[scottie]

I think this is a clear case of trying to compare apples to oranges. The view of Mormons - both by outsiders and by insiders evaluating themselves - is starkly different today than it would have been in the first decade of the 1900's.

At that time there were several factors relevant to Mormon culture/image that, imo, that would make trying to make any modern-day parallel impossible. For one, at that time there would have still been many old-guard members who saw themselves as building a revolutionary society for whom breaking the laws of the land, or even the "laws" (I'll get to that in a sec) of the church would not have caused them to bat an eyelash if it were for the furtherance of building up the kingdom. There were most likely those that were still alive that could remember coming over the plains in the first wagon companies, and the vast majority of people were either pioneers (in the sense of having left their lands of origin to come to Zion, even if it was by train/boat) or at the most two generations removed from pioneers. These people had left the United States in order to form their Zion, in large measure because the laws of the land did not agree with the radical aims of their dream society. It was the US that had followed them to Utah and laws of the oppressors were really not going to trump the laws/dictates of God.

Secondly, members of the church inhabited what might be described as the "post-manifesto" time period. It was a time when many of the leaders of the church were hiding in plain sight, as shown by the testimony of JFS you've produced here, and the "church" itself was engaged in a lot of doublespeak. Any "law" given by the church at this time, especially in regards to polygamy, would have been understood with a wink and a nod as a more "do what I do, not what I say" type instruction. This "law" of the church would have been understood by the members to be a political expediency. It gave leaders cover to say to government officials, "look, we've told our people not to do this, you will now have to place the onus for their actions squarely on them." It was a way for them to limit their exposure legally, while letting their actions in the community send a slightly different message. Truthfully, this was a time where there were still members of the 12 sanctioning polygamous marriages, if not performing them themselves. The Church still had a relatively active polygamous colony in Mexico. This "law" from the church about unlawful cohabitation would have been understood for exactly what it was, a way to limit the higher-ups liability to legal trouble.

Finally, this wouldn't have shocked anyone from the outside community, in the way that it would now if the Prophet were to admit to criminal illegal behavior. Mormons at the time weren't seen as the flag-waving, clean-cut and clean-living people that they are now publicly portrayed and understood to be. Contemporary political cartoons and editorials depicted Mormons as a sex-crazed, nutty band of immigrants living in the desert. JFS' admission would have only served to confirm in their mind the stereotype. Something that outsiders would undoubtedly shake their head at, but would not have been shocked by.

Any shock and awe that you now experience from reading those words is wholly informed by a modern image of the prophet and would have little to no parallel to how contemporary readers would have reacted to JFS' testimony. Apples to oranges, maybe even apples to elephants.

Good post.

[SeattleUte]

I think this is a clear case of trying to compare apples to oranges. The view of Mormons - both by outsiders and by insiders evaluating themselves - is starkly different today than it would have been in the first decade of the 1900's.

At that time there were several factors relevant to Mormon culture/image that, imo, that would make trying to make any modern-day parallel impossible. For one, at that time there would have still been many old-guard members who saw themselves as building a revolutionary society for whom breaking the laws of the land, or even the "laws" (I'll get to that in a sec) of the church would not have caused them to bat an eyelash if it were for the furtherance of building up the kingdom. There were most likely those that were still alive that could remember coming over the plains in the first wagon companies, and the vast majority of people were either pioneers (in the sense of having left their lands of origin to come to Zion, even if it was by train/boat) or at the most two generations removed from pioneers. These people had left the United States in order to form their Zion, in large measure because the laws of the land did not agree with the radical aims of their dream society. It was the US that had followed them to Utah and laws of the oppressors were really not going to trump the laws/dictates of God.

Secondly, members of the church inhabited what might be described as the "post-manifesto" time period. It was a time when many of the leaders of the church were hiding in plain sight, as shown by the testimony of JFS you've produced here, and the "church" itself was engaged in a lot of doublespeak. Any "law" given by the church at this time, especially in regards to polygamy, would have been understood with a wink and a nod as a more "do what I do, not what I say" type instruction. This "law" of the church would have been understood by the members to be a political expediency. It gave leaders cover to say to government officials, "look, we've told our people not to do this, you will now have to place the onus for their actions squarely on them." It was a way for them to limit their exposure legally, while letting their actions in the community send a slightly different message. Truthfully, this was a time where there were still members of the 12 sanctioning polygamous marriages, if not performing them themselves. The Church still had a relatively active polygamous colony in Mexico. This "law" from the church about unlawful cohabitation would have been understood for exactly what it was, a way to limit the higher-ups liability to legal trouble.

Finally, this wouldn't have shocked anyone from the outside community, in the way that it would now if the Prophet were to admit to criminal illegal behavior. Mormons at the time weren't seen as the flag-waving, clean-cut and clean-living people that they are now publicly portrayed and understood to be. Contemporary political cartoons and editorials depicted Mormons as a sex-crazed, nutty band of immigrants living in the desert. JFS' admission would have only served to confirm in their mind the stereotype. Something that outsiders would undoubtedly shake their head at, but would not have been shocked by.

Any shock and awe that you now experience from reading those words is wholly informed by a modern image of the prophet and would have little to no parallel to how contemporary readers would have reacted to JFS' testimony. Apples to oranges, maybe even apples to elephants.

fixed it for you.

[Indy Coug]

fixed it for you.

SU, you'll always be #1 in my book.

[creekster]

fixed it for you.

That is so witty! Gosh you are funny. I hope you NEVER stop posting this joke!

[Moliere]

fixed it for you.

[Indy Coug]

fixed it for you.

[creekster]

I htink your mormon culture made you post that.


(Do it SU, DO IT! it will be soooo funny!)

[Jeff Lebowski]

My great grandfather was a stake pres with three wives at the time of the manifesto. He refused to divorce two of his wives so he ended up spending at year in the Utah state prison. We have big photo of him in prison stripes with a bunch of other LDS men. It seemed to be a source of pride in our family that he was willing to do time rather than abandon part of his family.

[Indy Coug]

It seemed to be a source of pride in our family that he was willing to do time rather than abandon part of his family.

Justifiably?

[Katy Lied]

Scotty:

Yes I've read those sections before. Someone posted them in another thread. I think the shock of "surprise! I'm taking another wife" pertains to the first wife only, everyone else knows about it going in. And if you're the first wife getting married to someone during the period of polygamy, you'd have a pretty good idea that your husband might propose plural marriage at some point.

I also wonder how a husband broaches something like this to his first wife. It must be very difficult. I think much more difficult than "Hey Alice, let's swing." It entailed a division of property and a sharing of inheritance.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I think JFS makes it pretty clear that he was presented with a no-win situation so he made the best choice of those presented to him when the Manifesto came out. Abandoning the wives and the children would have been far worse than just following the law.

[mrluchini]

I think JFS makes it pretty clear that he was presented with a no-win situation so he made the best choice of those presented to him when the Manifesto came out. Abandoning the wives and the children would have been far worse than just following the law.

Pretty great example of the moral/ethical relativism that is so warned against in so many conference talks these days.

[RobinFinderson]

I think JFS makes it pretty clear that he was presented with a no-win situation so he made the best choice of those presented to him when the Manifesto came out. Abandoning the wives and the children would have been far worse than just following the law.

I don't understand all of the concern about abandonment. The church could have easily have dealt with these problem by setting up an organization that would take care of the temporal needs of the 'abandoned' wives and children. The husbands could have paid into the caretaking organization according to the number of women and children for whom they were temporally responsible. It didn't require anyone going to jail or abandoning responsibility.

[mrluchini]

I don't understand all of the concern about abandonment. The church could have easily have dealt with these problem by setting up an organization that would take care of the temporal needs of the 'abandoned' wives and children. The husbands could have paid into the caretaking organization according to the number of women and children for whom they were temporally responsible. It didn't require anyone going to jail or abandoning responsibility.

The only problem with that Robin, is that you no longer get to have sex with them as they are no longer your wife. I personally think the abandonment excuse is pretty shallow.