I think most people in the U.S. today "believe" monogamy is best, whether or not they're very good at it. I think many men (and some women), religious principles aside, would tend to want sexually open relationships, but when they believe they'll lose the emotionally intimate relationship they may have with a partner or spouse, they are compelled to rein in their appetites, and they make trade-offs. Monogamy is spoken of as the ultimate in companionship: it takes work, dedication, self-discipline, and commitment. It requires sacrifice and a beautiful dedication of one's self to one person. We quote scripture, that man is not to be alone, that a man and a woman are to be forged into one flesh, leaving all else to dedicate themselves to each other. There's something powerful in the psychology of knowingly giving up future lust or love for the one love you most want and are dedicating yourself to. Assuming it doesn't turn to resentment, there's an investment that encourages fidelity and is made the more sacred by the singular dedication. Among most Christians, monogamy is laudable while any form of open or plural marriage is condemnable as licentious and a mockery of a sacred institution.
You might think that LDS people, coming from a culture in which plural marriage was practiced in their history, would be more open to the idea of group marriages, at the very least polygyny. But most LDS people I know abhor the idea of plural marriage. Most find it repulsive and believe it would truly be a test of their faith if they were asked to practice it. Most I know also say they'd pray about it and at least consider complying if the prophet were to reinstate "the principle", but they admit they don't know if they could do it and hope and pray to never be asked to.
Cultural and societal ideas about relationships seem to be thoroughly convoluted, and perspectives from various groups seem contradictory of each other, sometimes even somewhat self-contradictory (such as those who insist marriage isn't about love but is about raising children, and then they say it's abhorrent that some cultures practice "arranged" marriages). It's no wonder there's so much debate about what "marriage" is, what it's for, and whether westerners have severely overly-romanticized notions about committed relationships and unions.
I've wondered why polygamy was ever outlawed in the first place. Because it was immoral? Because it was harmful to society? Because government and insurance companies didn't want the hassle of providing tax benefits and coverage to 8 wives and 53 children? Was it easier to just outlaw the practice than to deal with its ramifications? Is plural marriage bad for children? Can anyone prove that beyond occasional studies? Was it because polygyny treated women unequally? If so, why not open up polyandry instead of banning all forms of polygamy? Why is having more than one spouse illegal? What about it is against the Constitution or stomps on anyone else's rights? What about it damages society? We all know it can be practiced badly--forced marriages, young girls persuaded or compelled to marry older men, incestuous society in which nobody dares speak up against abuses and wrong-doing--but those are problems of execution and results of religious beliefs in practice, not evils of the practice of polygamy itself. But societies are fond of making things illegal rather than addressing the issues around them. It's much easier to just slap criminality on an unpopular practice than to deal with the consequences, nevermind whether the practice itself is actually a problem. That's understandable (though I'm not sure I can say it's "right") in emergency situations, but shouldn't the consequences be dealt with, then irrational laws repealed? How much time can go by before the people forget that it wasn't always that way, and possibly irrational laws are assumed to be "how things have always been"?
In exploring some of the questions around marriage in all its forms, I came across a couple of web sites and LDS scholarly forums which referenced quotes from early LDS Church leaders regarding the practice of plural marriage and the "system" of monogamy. I think such statements would give most members of the church pause (though bear in mind I haven't personally verified more than a couple of these by looking up the reference):
“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome…was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202
“The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”
- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128
“…the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.”
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227
“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire….Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers…. Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ it is the only popular religion there,…”
- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862
“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,…”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195
“We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations.”
- Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291
“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.”
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22
“Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. ”
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262
A couple of these statements are not, in fact, declarations over the pulpit, but writings or speeches given in other contexts. It's easy, today, to take a fairly black-and-white approach to these statements, such as, "It was correct to practice it then because the Lord said so, but circumstances changed, and the practice is forbidden now," or, "that was clearly a matter of policy, not doctrine, and the brethren did their best to explain the principle with what had been revealed to them."
I believe many LDS scholars still insist those prophetic statements still stand, within their own context, and are maybe even doctrinal, and that we all must be willing, even today, to engage in plural marriage if the law of the land and church were changed, and we were asked to, or we would be defying God's will. As far as I can tell, some believe it's true that monogamy is only a shade of the true order of heaven, but that we're compelled into it by the laws of the land, and the true order of heaven includes polygyny. Assuming there is a God who creates numberless spirit children who will exist in their current relationships into eternity, I wonder: what don't we know about that yet? Does God create more "female" spirits than "male" to preserve the practice of polygyny? Do fewer males achieve exaltation, leaving more females to be partnered? What if there are more Celestial males than females at some point? Will there be polyandry, too, and we're just not ready to face that? Of course, there are so many assumptions underlying all of this...
To those of you who cherish your monogamous marriages and disdain the idea of a plural marriage, imagine yourself in the days of Brigham Young or John Taylor: how do you respond to the prophetic declarations that your perspective on marriage is small-minded, damning, and associated with whoredom and the downfall of society? How do you distinguish doctrine from policy without your current hindsight? How do you defend your current notion that monogamy is best? Do you insist you're right for yourself, and they were just speaking the best they knew how from their cultural perspective? Do you shrug and say it's your own weakness that makes you too jealous to share your spouse with someone else or too frail to invest energy sufficient for more than one spouse? Do you bow to the notion that monogamy is a sign that we live in a fallen society? Do you praise certain Muslim or LDS-offshoot communities for their willingness and self-discipline to practice plural marriages and acknowledge your inferiority next to them in at least that respect? Do you believe you should be willing to practice plural marriage if asked but hope never to be asked?
I'm just not convinced I'm a selfish, fallen, small-minded, downfall-of-society-promoting guy for wanting a monogamous relationship, nor am I convinced that cultures which accept and embrace monogamy are engaging in a "system" which will lead to the fall of empires. Call me a heathen. I can take it.
10 comments:
I think it's interesting how not only do they promote polygamy, but they also talk about monogamy like it's a dirty, less enlightened way of living.
Heathen!
You didn't go where I thought you were going with this post. Interesting thoughts. I have struggled with the whole plural marriage concept for a long time, and still can't wrap my head around it.
I've wondered why polygamy was ever outlawed in the first place... Was it easier to just outlaw the practice than to deal with its ramifications?
You bring up an excellent point here, and one I think we fall back on individually as well. Instead of addressing the real reasons why such a practice is difficult to grasp (personal insecurities, ignorance, fear of change, etc.) we find comfort in this notion that it's illegal and thus, by default, wrong.
I really think a lot of context/clarification is needed in those quotes, though I understand you couldn't simply post the full text for brevity's sake. I'm glad you cited them though. I'll have to dig deeper to figure out the meaning behind them, like why Brigham Young said monogamy was a source of prostitution and whoredom. Very strange, since I'm sure that same arguement was used against plural marriage... :P
I'll admit, jealousy is a major reason for hesitation towards polygyny- that and the perception of inequality between men and women. If I could resolve that, I think it would be much easier to accept.
One last point in my rant - although in the given context, those quotes were more clearly addressed to the practice of polygyny, I don't recall ever reading anything that opposed the idea of polyandry as well. Like you mentioned, IF there were a shortage of Celestial women or other circumstance to support it, perhaps the tables could turn? If this is just about ramping up reproduction, why not just encourage multiple births through IVF or some other means? I have a hard time believing that mere mortals, in our limited knowledge, can produce multiple births through IVF and yet in Heaven the only solution is multiple wives...
JonJon, I've thought about that very thing, and I realize that back then, they were dealing with backlash and persecution around the practice of polygyny, and it was natural for them to defend it on a philosophical level or try to explain it the best they knew how in the day. So what you have is leaders of a pretty fringe religion of the day, defending their practice and not necessarily decrying _monogamy_ per se but the philosophical notion that monogamy is the end-all, be-all of relationships. It's not monogamous relationships they're speaking against but the notion that plural relationships (in this case, of a one-man-to-many-women kind and no other) are inherently wrong.
A side note: contrary to some popular rhetoric I've seen here and there, I don't think their commentary and declarations regarding the social effects of institutionalized monogamy exclusive of polygamy can be compared directly with today's leadership's comments regarding the supposed social and cultural effects of same-sex marriage. They weren't, apparently, decrying individual monogamous relationships as contrary to the order of heaven but the _belief_ that the practice of plural marriage is contrary to righteousness and monogamous relationships are the only sacred order. So even though they decried the supposedly small-minded belief in strictly monogamous pairings, a monogamous relationship in and itself was no issue...unless, I guess, someone was "called" to "the principle" and refused...that's where most of my conflict lies. Although I do strongly question the validity of the claims that "monogamic systems" had anything to do with the fall of civilizations. That seems a leap.
Bravone, now I'm wondering where you thought I'd go with this. :-)
Impossible K, I've wondered why they associated "monogamic systems" or philosophy with whoredom, too. Are they implying that men need more than one sexual partner and will surely seek sexual indulgence elsewhere if not given a God-sanctioned way to express it? Are they implying monogamy is the result of or a symptom of jealousy and selfishness which also express themselves in unhealthy sexual practices? I just don't quite understand what they meant to imply. Or maybe I do, and I just disagree.
I don't think it's right for institutionalized ways of thinking to pressure people into thinking they're just insecure if they want a monogamous relationship. I can definitely see how jealousy and insecurity could keep someone blinded to the possible benefits of polygamy, but does it necessarily follow that anyone who wants only monogamy is therefore jealous, selfish, or insecure?
And let's be careful how we throw around the word "jealous" because it can have different connotations: modern scriptural translations tell us God is "jealous" in that he will not have us put any other "gods" before him. But maybe he also has declared it wrong for any human to be jealous of another human in the sense that they shouldn't have any other human before them. We aren't gods yet, so whether he can get away with jealousy has little to do with us.
As for polyandry, good luck even raising questions about that in most LDS circles, particularly before women are ever given the priesthood directly. That'll go over like a fart in church. But I couldn't help but wonder...
I'll start with "wrapping my head around polygamy".
1) Done right, it cannot be worse than being single. At the rate I am going I might end up as a multiple wife in the hereafter anyway.
2) How is polygamy worse than serial monogamy? Johnny was born. Parent divorced. Each remarried, had more children. Then they divorce again. And so on. With polygamy I imagine a) there is more commitment to the Lord. b) it allows for “breaks” c) it would be less confusing to children.
3) You might argue a plural wife would be similar to a single mother in many aspects. Especially if they lived in different homes. However, they way things were done in the early days of the LDS church; she wouldn’t need to working outside the home. (Yes, I believe a mother with children should be at home. Daycare: if you want it done right, do it yourself.)
You maybe selfish…
That is what I have decided is wrong with the majority on men who are LDS, over 25, and single. There is apparently a need for gratification over following the council of the Lord’s anointed to marry and start a family. “I haven’t found the right one”…my foot. There is a need for mutual respect, emotional and spiritual equality, as well as physical attraction. Anyone who thinks they or their partner need to look like the person on the front of a magazine to be physically attractive has allowed Satan and mass media to distort beauty.
Also selfishness is based in pride it is most likely the root cause of most divorces, on the side of one party or both. If any sort of marriage/relationship is to work and produce lasting satisfaction selfish wants and desires need to shrink. Little will be accomplished by two people saying; “No dear, whatever you want” all day. With open and respectful communication needs and desires as individuals can be weighed against needs of the relationship.
You suggested “westerners have severely overly-romanticized notions about committed relationships and unions”. I agree with that. I also believe their can be a balance. I hope to learn how much more romantic it is to sit and hold hands with someone I have been with for 40 years verses 40 days.
Here’s to hoping.
I agree with what you said, Mee, about selfish desires needing to shrink in a marriage relationship, or any quality, intimate friendship, for that matter. I think far too many people use relationships for personal gratification. Women do it to, but on an emotional level more often than looking for some physical ideal (though I've known some who do that, too).
I've learned a lot about myself and what I want/need in and seek from relationships over the past few years, and one thing I've learned is that I can fall for someone who's not at all my physical ideal, but the intimacy can be complete and wonderful nonetheless. I always thought that about myself, but I hadn't experienced much yet, and it took some pretty big life lessons and self realizations to really discover it in a real way that made me say, "Ah, this is it." For a while, I was afraid I might turn out to be as shallow as the next guy, and I've certainly allowed myself to be distracted at times.
In some ways, and as much as women (especially those who've never been married to a guy and learned some of this first-hand) hate to hear it, a guy's a guy. We're generally driven by certain different things than women generally are. Keep in mind: I say "generally". I think men and women have some different wiring. But we're also capable of seeing beyond that to make decisions based on principle as well as emotion. We're capable of moving past certain instinctual tendencies. And I have to believe we're all certainly capable of setting aside fixation on some particular, unrealistic ideal and instead loving a whole, real person.
As a friend of mine put it: he looked at the hottie, who was more his ideal, then he looked back at the not-as-hottie who seemed the kind of person he wanted to be with, and he said, "I realized then that I wanted that," and it was a paradigm shift of sorts. Of course, he's still single, so we'll see how that plays out. ;-) But don't give up on us completely. We're not as hopeless as you might think. :-)
That said, this is all incidental to polygamy, especially as it relates to how it all began in the church, but I'll leave that for another time.
And I don't think anyone has compared serial monogamy here. Of course it makes more sense to kids when everyone stays around. Again, these are reasons why polygyny, or even polyandry or group marriages, make some sense. Although, imagine being the spouse from whom your spouse needs a break when you don't want a break...it would come with some severe challenges. Yes, every relationship does, but these are on top of the usual. But hey, bigger support system to handle bigger issues. I just keep coming back to the fact that I can't tell someone else they're wrong for doing it if they're doing it wisely and carefully, but I still don't want it for myself, and though I admit that could potentially change someday, I think it's OK for me to not want it.
Wow, fascinating post and great comments.
Base feelings and natural-man tendencies aside: If the spirits are waiting in Heaven and need to get to earth somehow to participate in this journey called life, well, we need the wombs for it. Posterity from that massive "seeding" has grown exponentially. So, I'd say mission accomplished.
If you trace back through the Old Testament, you'll see that people needed to populate new nations or at least new colonies of "covenant" people. Polygamy was pretty handy then and I imagine the need to populate the new frontier with "covenant" people was high on the priority list for the early saints...?
If there ever comes a time when our family is asked to participate in something like polygamy, I can always say, "NO" if I want. Agency, remember? It's not one of the saving ordinances to be in a "plural" marriage. Besides, I'm a lot of work already. My husband doesn't want to have to deal with more wives.
;-)
Ha, I always did appreciate your practical approach, Crystal.
Among LDS scholars today, there's a lot of discussion indicating "raising seed" is a highly questionable reason for the practice in the early church, and...well, maybe no need to go into it here, but my reading has turned up a LOT of interesting evidence and debate, even among faithful LDS scholars about church history, including some very different takes on the subject.
If the cessation of plural marriage had come with a clear revelation that it was never meant to happen, or if historical evidence overwhelmingly mounts in favor of the notion that Joseph Smith honestly denounced plural marriage and didn't practice it as our current understanding claims, would LDS adherents who defend it today still look for ways to submit themselves to the idea, and would they still acknowledge its usefulness and plausibility?
But then, my reason in bringing this up wasn't necessarily to debate the validity of polygyny or polygamy in general but to point out how the general church membership's view of monogamy has changed over time and to show in turn and by example that sometimes, hindsight offers a more ample perspective than the current climate allows, and we'd often do well to back up, watch what we say about a fuzzy subject, and realize we may not understand, either individually or collectively, as fully as we may assume.
I apologize if I'm repeating comments made by another, I haven't yet read them all. I just wanted to point out that "plural wife" practices happened in cultures where women=property and were not allowed to work/provide for themselves. Therefore, a man was needed to provide, and if multiple women needed that help - then he also gets sexual benefits. In fact, in the cultures that I know of where polygamy is still practiced, this is ultimately the case.
Where women are allowed to provide for themselves, and have a voice, monogamy is the general rule. Although, in theory polygamy may be beneficial (financial, emotional and sexual connections with the various favorite partners for such matters) those who believe they are beyond jealousy usually do practice this in the form of either adultery or open relationships. I can think of other women I wouldn't mind sharing a lifetime of (platonic)companionship with, but I'm sure I would be in emotional shreds if I had to share my husband sexually with another. From all accounts I've heard, this often becomes the case with adultery and open relationships for at least one member of the couple.
In short, the idea that polygamy as previously practiced by the LDS church could still be necessary or desired today is sexist and ridiculous. At the same time, If people (ALL members of the marriage) truly want to live that way, I see no reason to lawfully prevent it.
Post a Comment