Okay, we're going to have to hit this polygamy issue several times to really put it to rest. Again, I have NOT thought this one all the way through yet, but my preliminary hypothesis goes something like this: Whatever God says is right, therefore, if He commands it, polygamy must be not only acceptable, but true, right, and good as a principle of eternal happiness. However, my understanding of HOW it might make one happy in the sense of bringing a durable, eternal joy, is severely lacking. I can demonstrate to you how the principle of love, marriage, and having children can bring joy, but I'm at a loss as soon as another wife steps into the picture. It is a principle that I am not just relieved, but ecstatic to know is not currently a principle mortals need concern themselves with. I've seen my share of polygamous families in Africa, and to the extent that such families are even functional (providing all individuals involved with the love and support it takes to fulfill the purpose of the union, which is joy) I can't imagine myself in such a situation. On the part of the husband, it would take great character, leadership, discipline, and above all love—more than I have on all counts—to keep children and wives all happy and cared for while at the same time preventing jealousies and unequal treatment. On the part of the wives, it would take incredible patience, selflessness and above all love. Despite my experience, and readings on the subject, I can scarcely imagine the day-to-day vicissitudes involved in a plural union. But for all my personal misgivings, it should be noted that there ARE families in Africa and elsewhere where multiple wives get along fine, where children are raised exceptionally well, and where it's possible for a husband and wives to conceive of such intimate sharing as just that—SHARING—and not as the deep betrayal that Western culture sometimes arrogantly assumes would be the universal human feeling, especially on the part of the women involved.
Don't get me wrong, in order for polygamy to "work", some very careful safeguards and guarantees have to be in place to insure that the familial structure with the man at the head can't so easily turn into the masculine domination that might seem quite naturally to be built in. It is false to assume that a structure pre-disposed toward a central authority figure automatically produces oppression, but as the structure becomes more centrally focused, it stands to reason that the pressure for the authority figure to impose his will, rather than govern by consent—even by convincing followers to willingly follow—would be all the greater, and the temptation all the more easy to succumb to. I strive, as I think all men should, for an equal "yolk" with my wife in all matters. We have our different areas of expertise, and we try our best to conform to the Lord's expectations of our roles as husband and wife, mother and father, but with all our differences, we have a unity of focus, purpose, and even method in most cases that enables us to feel equal to each other in all important aspects. There is no structural reason why a polygamous family could not also maintain equality among the individuals in the union according to their differential roles, only a stronger temptation for the man to assume more authority than he has.
Polygamy is not currently condoned or even tolerated within the LDS church and while the principle may still be true (albeit incomprehensibly for most mortals), the change in the commandment for the principle to be practiced or not on earth should not shock anyone familiar with the biblical principle of ritual symbolic representations of the Savior. As W. John Walsh notes here, the law of sacrifice reverting to the sacrament of the bread and water commemoration is a good example of how the principles remain eternal, but the earthly practices are revoked or altered by revelation to authorized individuals according to the wishes of the Father. Furthermore, reviewing the Bible as a historical record on the practice of polygamy, we know it was commanded to be practiced at certain times in the Old Testament (Abraham, David, cases in point). New Testament scriptures speak much of rules governing divorce, but remain silent on whether the practice was continued by the early Christians, except for the indirect references of Paul to the requirements of a bishop as being a man having [only] one wife (does that suggest other members were allowed to marry more than one wife, or does it suggest the rule of one wife [only] should also apply to other offices in the Church besides bishop?). The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, candidly discusses a turning point where God, through an Old Testament era prophet revoked the polygamy rule and commanded monogamy. Keep in mind for later that this doctrine (that the polygamy commandment could be temporary) was translated and available to the Church before 1830, and therefore long before Joseph Smith reportedly had begun receiving revelations about the practice and principle (1831), and formed a doctrinal precedent from which the 1890 Manifesto could draw (thereby weakening the case that it was purely political pressure that forced a "revelation" to end polygamy).
So before we attack the subject with vigor, let us commence with some much needed rigor.
Marriage: a human social institution whereby a man and a woman covenant with each other, as ratified by an authority beyond the couple themselves, to form a family (a single social unit, whether that unit later includes children or not) with a right to certain privileges and status as granted by the marrying authority. [Will comment and distinguish various civil and traditional arrangments in a later post]
Plural marriage: in the general sense this could mean polygamy of any type (polyandry or polygyny), in Mormon terminology, this refers exclusively to polygyny—a marriage performed in which the man in the couple is currently already under marital vows.
Celestial marriage: alternatively called eternal marriage, or sealing; a special Mormon term for a marriage (as previously defined) ratified by the authority of God (authority exercised by an authorized representative, called a Priesthood holder, having a certain office within the organization of that Priesthood), as being binding and valid for the eternal lives of the individuals involved. In other words, the defining characteristic of a marriage sealed by the aforementioned authority is that the death of either party does not dissolve the union, which is empowered to continue in the Heavens after this life and beyond the Judgment Day as long as both individuals remain faithful and eligible for the highest degree of glory in the Heavens (only the purest can expect this blessing). The scriptural revelation from Joseph Smith concerning the doctrine of celestial marriage and the separate practice of polygyny can be found here, and has been public from the outset (contrary to the claims of PBS's hostile witness informants).
Temporal marriage: LDS term for a marriage which is not "celestial". This includes marriages entered into by Mormons who elect, or who, by some reason of unworthiness are not able, to enter a temple (which is the only place a celestial marriage is authorized to be solemnized), as well as all non-LDS marriages (which is not a condemnation, but rather a statement of blunt fact which makes sense within the Mormon system of beliefs since they claim they are the only Church to have a true entitlement to Priesthood authority). The revelation on celestial marriage (again found here) is couched from the first verses in the context of jurisdictions of authority, earthly (civil or otherwise) authorities being able to enforce marital relationships for the period of mortality, and heavenly powers (such as the Priesthood), as exercised by authorized individuals according to established rules and rituals, may have force beyond the grave.
Three quick points for the record then:
1. The PBS special "The Mormons" consistently (and I would tend to believe intentionally) used the terms plural marriage and celestial marriage as completely and totally synonymous. This conflation is patently misleading, and should need no further comment. Plural marriage can be celestial, but celestial marriage need not be plural. I and all Mormons from 1890 on who have been "sealed" in temples by the authority of God, have celestial marriages, but even those marriages can be annulled if a second is contracted while the first wife is alive, because no holder of the Priesthood is authorized to perform plural marriages since that time, and both he and the man in such a marriage would be immediately excommunicated and forfeit all promised eternal blessings should such a marriage be solemnized—the offense is tantamount to adultery.
2. PBS and others note that in the historical record there were a handful of marriages contracted by Joseph Smith (I know of no other men from whom this occured) in which the wives were already under marital vows to another living man. This is invariably presented as clear evidence of Smith's unquenchable libido, and appalling lack of scruples, committing adultery even by his own definition in unthinkable polyandry. Given the previous definitions of marriage, and especially the distinctions between celestial and temporal marriage, important distinctions PBS failed to make (again, it's not unfair to ask: Was that omitted intentionally?), it is inconsistent with the truth to describe these marriages as polyandrous. According to a meticulously annotated article by Samuel Katich here, there is no credible evidence that Joseph Smith or the women involved ever consummated these marriages, and in all cases the women continued to live with their first husbands. The "marriages" Joseph Smith contracted with these women were celestial, but at no time was there adulterous behavior on his part, since the temporal marriages the women were already living under were still completely valid and inviolate. In all cases, since the women involved did not conceive of their celestial marriages as having any bearing on their temporal ones, and since they all only maintained a sexual relationship with one husband (their original one! NOT Joseph Smith) until their vows released them (divorce or death), Smith's "polyandrous" marriages were quite literally paper marriages only, they only took force after the deaths both of Joseph and of his wife, and the word polyandry, implying sexual activity in the marriage, is revealed as quite inapt at best and maliciously insidious at worst.
3. There is a claim extant that Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage with a Fanny Alger, his onetime housemaid, as early as 1833 during the time she boarded with he and Emma (who considered Fanny her best friend). Fanny later did become one of Joseph's wives, but there is no evidence of impropriety according to this site (which makes some otherwise controversial analyses, but which nevertheless documents this particular point adequately). Only lazy journalism or intentional distortion could have led PBS then to claim that Joseph was practicing polygamy before the revelation was made.
For an insightful letter from an LDS educator who was also appalled at the representation PBS makes, please visit the Spiritual Boot Camp blog. It is an excellent, thorough look at the music, art, cinematography, journalistic balance (what time was given to pro and contra witnesses? etc.), and doctrines presented. I hope to echo many of the arguments Bro. Sherry makes, and broaden, deepen, or otherwise provide more detail on some others as we continue our analysis.
Don't get me wrong, in order for polygamy to "work", some very careful safeguards and guarantees have to be in place to insure that the familial structure with the man at the head can't so easily turn into the masculine domination that might seem quite naturally to be built in. It is false to assume that a structure pre-disposed toward a central authority figure automatically produces oppression, but as the structure becomes more centrally focused, it stands to reason that the pressure for the authority figure to impose his will, rather than govern by consent—even by convincing followers to willingly follow—would be all the greater, and the temptation all the more easy to succumb to. I strive, as I think all men should, for an equal "yolk" with my wife in all matters. We have our different areas of expertise, and we try our best to conform to the Lord's expectations of our roles as husband and wife, mother and father, but with all our differences, we have a unity of focus, purpose, and even method in most cases that enables us to feel equal to each other in all important aspects. There is no structural reason why a polygamous family could not also maintain equality among the individuals in the union according to their differential roles, only a stronger temptation for the man to assume more authority than he has.
Polygamy is not currently condoned or even tolerated within the LDS church and while the principle may still be true (albeit incomprehensibly for most mortals), the change in the commandment for the principle to be practiced or not on earth should not shock anyone familiar with the biblical principle of ritual symbolic representations of the Savior. As W. John Walsh notes here, the law of sacrifice reverting to the sacrament of the bread and water commemoration is a good example of how the principles remain eternal, but the earthly practices are revoked or altered by revelation to authorized individuals according to the wishes of the Father. Furthermore, reviewing the Bible as a historical record on the practice of polygamy, we know it was commanded to be practiced at certain times in the Old Testament (Abraham, David, cases in point). New Testament scriptures speak much of rules governing divorce, but remain silent on whether the practice was continued by the early Christians, except for the indirect references of Paul to the requirements of a bishop as being a man having [only] one wife (does that suggest other members were allowed to marry more than one wife, or does it suggest the rule of one wife [only] should also apply to other offices in the Church besides bishop?). The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, candidly discusses a turning point where God, through an Old Testament era prophet revoked the polygamy rule and commanded monogamy. Keep in mind for later that this doctrine (that the polygamy commandment could be temporary) was translated and available to the Church before 1830, and therefore long before Joseph Smith reportedly had begun receiving revelations about the practice and principle (1831), and formed a doctrinal precedent from which the 1890 Manifesto could draw (thereby weakening the case that it was purely political pressure that forced a "revelation" to end polygamy).
So before we attack the subject with vigor, let us commence with some much needed rigor.
Marriage: a human social institution whereby a man and a woman covenant with each other, as ratified by an authority beyond the couple themselves, to form a family (a single social unit, whether that unit later includes children or not) with a right to certain privileges and status as granted by the marrying authority. [Will comment and distinguish various civil and traditional arrangments in a later post]
Plural marriage: in the general sense this could mean polygamy of any type (polyandry or polygyny), in Mormon terminology, this refers exclusively to polygyny—a marriage performed in which the man in the couple is currently already under marital vows.
Celestial marriage: alternatively called eternal marriage, or sealing; a special Mormon term for a marriage (as previously defined) ratified by the authority of God (authority exercised by an authorized representative, called a Priesthood holder, having a certain office within the organization of that Priesthood), as being binding and valid for the eternal lives of the individuals involved. In other words, the defining characteristic of a marriage sealed by the aforementioned authority is that the death of either party does not dissolve the union, which is empowered to continue in the Heavens after this life and beyond the Judgment Day as long as both individuals remain faithful and eligible for the highest degree of glory in the Heavens (only the purest can expect this blessing). The scriptural revelation from Joseph Smith concerning the doctrine of celestial marriage and the separate practice of polygyny can be found here, and has been public from the outset (contrary to the claims of PBS's hostile witness informants).
Temporal marriage: LDS term for a marriage which is not "celestial". This includes marriages entered into by Mormons who elect, or who, by some reason of unworthiness are not able, to enter a temple (which is the only place a celestial marriage is authorized to be solemnized), as well as all non-LDS marriages (which is not a condemnation, but rather a statement of blunt fact which makes sense within the Mormon system of beliefs since they claim they are the only Church to have a true entitlement to Priesthood authority). The revelation on celestial marriage (again found here) is couched from the first verses in the context of jurisdictions of authority, earthly (civil or otherwise) authorities being able to enforce marital relationships for the period of mortality, and heavenly powers (such as the Priesthood), as exercised by authorized individuals according to established rules and rituals, may have force beyond the grave.
Three quick points for the record then:
1. The PBS special "The Mormons" consistently (and I would tend to believe intentionally) used the terms plural marriage and celestial marriage as completely and totally synonymous. This conflation is patently misleading, and should need no further comment. Plural marriage can be celestial, but celestial marriage need not be plural. I and all Mormons from 1890 on who have been "sealed" in temples by the authority of God, have celestial marriages, but even those marriages can be annulled if a second is contracted while the first wife is alive, because no holder of the Priesthood is authorized to perform plural marriages since that time, and both he and the man in such a marriage would be immediately excommunicated and forfeit all promised eternal blessings should such a marriage be solemnized—the offense is tantamount to adultery.
2. PBS and others note that in the historical record there were a handful of marriages contracted by Joseph Smith (I know of no other men from whom this occured) in which the wives were already under marital vows to another living man. This is invariably presented as clear evidence of Smith's unquenchable libido, and appalling lack of scruples, committing adultery even by his own definition in unthinkable polyandry. Given the previous definitions of marriage, and especially the distinctions between celestial and temporal marriage, important distinctions PBS failed to make (again, it's not unfair to ask: Was that omitted intentionally?), it is inconsistent with the truth to describe these marriages as polyandrous. According to a meticulously annotated article by Samuel Katich here, there is no credible evidence that Joseph Smith or the women involved ever consummated these marriages, and in all cases the women continued to live with their first husbands. The "marriages" Joseph Smith contracted with these women were celestial, but at no time was there adulterous behavior on his part, since the temporal marriages the women were already living under were still completely valid and inviolate. In all cases, since the women involved did not conceive of their celestial marriages as having any bearing on their temporal ones, and since they all only maintained a sexual relationship with one husband (their original one! NOT Joseph Smith) until their vows released them (divorce or death), Smith's "polyandrous" marriages were quite literally paper marriages only, they only took force after the deaths both of Joseph and of his wife, and the word polyandry, implying sexual activity in the marriage, is revealed as quite inapt at best and maliciously insidious at worst.
3. There is a claim extant that Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage with a Fanny Alger, his onetime housemaid, as early as 1833 during the time she boarded with he and Emma (who considered Fanny her best friend). Fanny later did become one of Joseph's wives, but there is no evidence of impropriety according to this site (which makes some otherwise controversial analyses, but which nevertheless documents this particular point adequately). Only lazy journalism or intentional distortion could have led PBS then to claim that Joseph was practicing polygamy before the revelation was made.
For an insightful letter from an LDS educator who was also appalled at the representation PBS makes, please visit the Spiritual Boot Camp blog. It is an excellent, thorough look at the music, art, cinematography, journalistic balance (what time was given to pro and contra witnesses? etc.), and doctrines presented. I hope to echo many of the arguments Bro. Sherry makes, and broaden, deepen, or otherwise provide more detail on some others as we continue our analysis.
Comments